Bottling plant worker's suit claiming ADA violation tossed
Published 04/003/08

The Americans With Disabilities Act (“ ADA ”) not only protects employees from discrimination based upon a disability, but also from discrimination based upon an employer having regarded the employee as being disabled. The reason for that is to cover those cases in which myths, fears, and stereotypes affects the employer's treatment of an individual.

The recent decision in the case of Delia Ruiz Rivera v. Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, LLC from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit sets forth what is necessary to prove a disability claim. That Court sits in Boston and hears appeals from New Hampshire as well as from Puerto Rico and on March 27, 2008 addressed this case from an appeal from the Puerto Rico federal court.

Rivera worked at Pfizer's Puerto Rico facility as a packaging operator in the bottling department that involved pouring pills, bottles, caps, monitoring the conveyor, packing and inspecting product, and cleaning machinery. After Rivera became pregnant and having certain other physical ailments as well as depression, she was ultimately put on restrictions by her doctor to: avoid repetitive motions with her hands; avoid hands over the head/shoulders position; not to lift over 25 pounds; and to limit lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, holding, and bending.

Based upon the restrictions imposed by Rivera's doctor, the company doctor concluded that in view of these recommendations and after a conversation with the work's supervisor that Rivera could not perform the essential tasks of her job in that she needs her hands to do the work. He recommended she did not return to work.

Pfizer also told Rivera that they would not accommodate her because they did not believe her impairments were sufficient to constitute a disability under the ADA . For approximately 9 months, she did not return to work and Pfizer eventually terminated her after she rebuffed the request that she return to work.

While Rivera sued Pfizer under a variety of theories including stating that she was disabled, the case that ultimately remained for the court to review was her claim that Pfizer regarded her as being disabled and therefore when it terminated her it violated the ADA as well as the Puerto Rico law counterpart.

Congress created regarded-as ADA rights because it had recognized that society's accumulated myths and fears about disability and disease are as handicapping as the physical limitations that flow from actual impairment. Rivera would have to show that Pfizer did not merely perceive her as somehow disabled; rather she must prove that Pfizer regarded her as disabled within the meaning of the ADA.

One of Rivera's claims was that Pfizer had regarded her as being disabled because they believed her physical impairment substantially limited the major life activity of working even though she stated that she could work. Therefore, Rivera must demonstrate not only that Pfizer thought that she was impaired in her ability to do the job that she held, but also that Pfizer regarded her as substantially impaired in either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills, and abilities. In other words, if Pfizer purely regarded her as not being able to do that particular job, that was not enough for her to prove her case.

Rivera, among other things, argued that Pfizer's doctor's response to the restrictions proposed by her own personal physician wherein Pfizer's doctor determined she could not return to work at her position in the bottling department at the Pfizer showed that Pfizer regarded her as being disabled. Under the law, Rivera cannot rely exclusively on Pfizer's recognition or implementation of restrictions imposed by her own physician to establish her regarded-as claim.

If the restriction Pfizer placed is based upon recommendations of physicians and it is not based upon myths or stereotypes about the disabled, this does not establish a perception of disability. Moreover, Pfizer did not terminate Rivera's employment when it refused to accommodate the restrictions imposed by her doctor; rather it terminated her over nine months later after numerous unsuccessful attempts to seek updates on her medical status and her failure to return to work.

As a result, the remaining claims of Rivera were dismissed and she was not allowed to go forward with seeking relief from a jury.

J. Daniel Marr is a director and shareholder of Hamblett & Kerrigan, P.A. His legal practice includes counseling businesses and business persons on a variety of legal issues, including employment, and advocating on their behalf. You can reach Attorney Marr by e-mail at: dmarr@hamker.com

This information is general information and may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. The information provided should not be relied upon as an indication of the actual state of the law or of future developments. The information contained on the Hamblett & Kerrigan website is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If the information referenced may be of legal importance to you, you should consult with an attorney to provide you with legal guidance and opinion as the the effect of the current law upon your situation.