Weekly Edition

One-handed jail applicant can sue under the ADA

A one-handed applicant rejected for a job as a guard at a regional jail can go forward with her employment discrimination claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a Norfolk federal judge has ruled.

To overcome the conclusions of the jail superintendent and the jail’s doctor that the plaintiff could not safely perform the job, the plaintiff hired an expert who tested her on the essential functions of a corrections officer. The expert’s report was cited by the judge as “concrete evidence” that outweighed the opinions of the jail’s doctor, who apparently did not perform any medical examination.

U.S. District Judge Walter D. Kelley Jr. wrote the opinion and order in Taylor v. Hampton Roads Regional Jail Authority (VLW 008-3-169), denying the jail authority’s summary judgment motion.

Chanelle Taylor is a 22-year-old woman born without a right hand and forearm. She has chosen not to wear a prosthetic limb. Instead, she adapted by improvising ways to accomplish everyday tasks. According to court pleadings, she does not consider herself disabled.

Taylor hoped to join her uncle who works as a jail officer at the regional jail. She applied in 2005 and was told she could undergo testing for the job. When Taylor passed all the tests, including a physical agility test, she was offered the job. The offer, however, was conditioned on passing a physical examination.

At that point, the jail superintendent got involved, according to the opinion. He forwarded a list of job requirements to the examining doctor. The job requirements included “manual dexterity in both hands to restrain unruly individuals.” For the lack of one hand, the doctor deemed Taylor unfit for duty and she was told that she would not be hired. Kelley described the physical exam as “rigged.”

Taylor sued and – to show that she could do the job – she hired an expert in tactical defense training with 25 years of law enforcement experience to test her. The expert tested Taylor on the identified essential functions of the job and prepared a “detailed report” in which he opined that, with some accommodations, Taylor could discharge all of those functions.
Even with that expert support, Taylor had to walk a fine line to avoid summary judgment. There are two hurdles for an ADA employment claimant. Taylor had to show that there was a genuine issue as to whether she was disabled, even though she did not regard herself as disabled. She also had to show that, despite that disability, she had evidence that she could perform the job.

Zachary Kitts, who chairs the employment and civil rights law section of the Virginia Trial Lawyers Association, explained that those seemingly contradictory elements make it tough to advance an ADA employment claim.

Because the ADA will not help a job-seeker unless the applicant is substantially limited in one or more “major life activities,” Kitts said that many ADA plaintiffs undermine their own case by overstating their capabilities.

“You’ve really got to thread the needle to have an ADA claim in the employment context,” Kitts said. “The lawyer here did a hell of a job, in my opinion.”

Taylor, the plaintiff, admitted that she did not consider herself disabled, but Kelley brushed aside that “optimistic self-assessment” as deserving little weight. Her inability to comb her hair or cut her food presented a trial issue as to whether she was disabled, the judge ruled.

Kelley then turned to the second prong of the ADA claim, the plaintiff’s purported ability to do the job. “It seems counterintuitive to conclude that a one-handed person could perform the essential functions of a jail officer, but the ADA was intended to move society beyond stereotypes and into evidence of a disabled person’s actual abilities,” Kelley wrote.

Noting that the plaintiff had passed every test for the job, and submitted a favorable report from her own expert, the judge found that the employer “offered nothing more than the generalized, conclusory statements of its employees.”

According to the judge, “[N]one of [the defendant’s] witnesses attempted to explain why [the expert’s] evaluation was inaccurate, implausible, or otherwise not indicative of on-the-job conditions.”

Taylor’s attorney, Andrew Hendrick of Virginia Beach, said he is awaiting assignment of the case to a new judge. Kelley is stepping down from the bench to re-enter private practice.

© Copyright 2008, by Virginia Lawyers Media, all rights reserved