Wood Crapo LLC

Limited Impairments Not Protected by ADA

In a recent decision, the Tenth Circuit upheld the district court’s dismissal of an employee’s ADA case without trial. The Tenth Circuit held that although an employee might be suffering from an illness or impairment (such as cerebral palsy), such an employee is not entitled to protection under the ADA unless the employee’s impairment substantially limits a major life activity – such as caring for oneself. Limited and specific difficulties are not sufficient to warrant protection.

The Facts

Dawn Holt was employed by Grand Lake Mental Health Center, Inc. (GLMHC).

Holt suffered from a mild form of cerebral palsy that adversary affected her speech and her ability to perform certain activities requireing fine motor coordination. For example, Holt required assistance when chopping, peeling, or slicing food. Holt also required assistance in trimming her fingernails and toenails. And, while Holt could dress herself, she sometimes required assistance buttoning her clothes.

Despite these challenges, Holt successfully held several different positions at GLMHC during her employment. From 1993 to 2000, Holt was promoted on several occasions – each time she was given more responsibility and a higher salary.

In early 2001, however, perceptions of Holt’s job performance began to decline. At this time, Holt’s supervisor observed a “marked change” in her behavior at the office and with her co-workers. As a result, Holt was transferred to the Tulsa office.

At the Tulsa office, Holt’s performance continued to decline. In fact, GLMHC’s executive team noted a rapid deterioration in her ability to function on the job. Holt stated that because of her cerebral palsy she had problems keeping up with the writing demands of the position. However, GLMHC believed that Holt’s deterioration resulted largely from domestic abuse problems she was experiencing at home.

Due to Holt’s deteriorating performance, the GLMHC executive team offered her another position with less responsibility and less pay. Holt declined, and GLMHC terminated her.

Holt subsequently filed suit in federal court, alleging violations of the ADA. The district court dismissed Holt’s case without a trial, concluding that she had failed to demonstrate she was “disabled” under the ADA. Holt appealed.

The Appeal

The Tenth Circuit upheld the district court’s decision.

The Tenth Circuit stated that to establish a valid claim under the ADA, an employee must first establish that she was “disabled” under the ADA. Thus, an employee must show that she suffer from an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. That is, that the employee’s impairment “prevents or severely restricts an individual from doing activities that are of central importance to most people’s daily lives.”

The Tenth Circuit found that Holt had offered no such evidence of a substantial limitation. Although Holt’s cerebral palsy was an “impairment,” any limitations to Holt’s daily life were narrow and specific. For example, while Holt had some difficulties in chopping and slicing food, she was not severely restricted in her ability to cook. While Holt had difficulties in trimming her nails, she was not severely restricted in her ability to perform other manual tasks relating to personal hygiene. Nor did the evidence show that she was severely restricted in her ability to dress herself.

For those reasons, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Holt was not disabled under the ADA. Holt v. Grand Lake Mental Health Center, Inc., 443 F.3d 762 (10th Cir. 2006).

Lessons Learned

The Holt case provides a prime example of the distinction between an impairment and a disability. It also show that an employer will not be liable for alleged violations of the ADA simply because its employment actions relate to an employee who is suffering from an illness or an impairment.

Rather, the Holt case demonstrates that for an employee to be entitled to protection under the ADA, that employee must be substantially impaired in her ability to perform “major life activities” such as caring for herself. And, while caring for one’s self “encompasses normal activities of daily living; including feeding oneself, driving, grooming, and cleaning home,” specific and narrow limitations (such as those suffered by Holt) are simply insufficient to warrant protection under the Act.