August 18, 2004 / Issue No. 2-04
 
Email our Editor
Home Page
. Search back issues
. Forward to a Friend
. Subscribe/Unsubscribe
Printer Friendly
EDITOR’S NOTE
Human Resource & Labor News Returns with New Look!
MIDYEAR MEETING
McCarron Slated to Explain Consolidations
Wage-Hour Administrator to Discuss the Davis-Bacon Survey Process
Generation Expert to Talk About Employing “Millennials”
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
HR Professionals Mingle and Learn at AGC’s HR Networking Forum
AGC Labor Lawyers Hold 20th Annual Symposium
LABOR-MANAGEMENT COOPERATION
AGC Supports Tripartite Initiative’s Recommendations for Action
AGC WEB SITE
How to Find Labor & HR Information on AGC's New Web Site
FEDERAL REGULATIONS
New Overtime Regulations Take Effect Aug. 23
Federal Contractors Must Post Beck Notice
AGC Partners with Labor Department on Compliance Assistance
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
Newly Negotiated Wage-and-Fringe Rates Down Slightly From Last Year
BENEFIT FUNDS
Agreement Not Signed by Authorized Company Official Does Not Obligate Contractor to Make Benefit Fund Contributions
Contractor with Overlapping Jurisdictional Clauses Must Pay Benefits Twice
Segal Company Reports on Multiemployer Pension Funding Levels and Investment Performance
WORKPLACE INVESTIGATIONS
NLRB Reverses Latest Grant of Representation Rights to Nonunion Employees
JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES
NLRB’s 10(k) Award Trumps Conflicting Arbitration Award
FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
Diabetic Forklift Driver Denied Claim Under ADA

  Diabetic Forklift Driver Denied Claim Under ADA
An employer did not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when it transferred a diabetic forklift driver to a new position, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (KY, MI, OH, TN).

Lucille Mohr worked for the Hoover Company for over 22 years.  In 1995, she was diagnosed with Type II diabetes and informed Hoover’s medical director, Dr. Nicoletti, of her condition at that time.  Since 1998, she worked as a warehouse “high rider,” which required her to operate a forklift at least 25 feet high to store and retrieve supplies.  In 2000, the company became concerned about the absenteeism of another diabetic employee and began a review of its policy allowing diabetic employees to operate forklifts.  The investigation revealed that Mohr and two other forklift operators, Larry Coyne and Larry Palmer, were diabetic.  The company reviewed the employees’ medical records and found that Mohr had experienced recurring episodes related to her blood sugar levels, including fainting, disorientation, and falling asleep standing up.  Dr. Nicoletti recommended that Coyne be permitted to continue operating a forklift, but that Mohr and Palmer be restricted from operating a forklift and “dangerous machinery.”  Hoover invited Mohr to bid on 50 other positions that paid at least as much as the high rider position.  She selected one of the positions and was transferred to it.

Mohr sued Hoover claiming that the transfer violated the ADA, among other statutes.  Mohr did not allege that she was disabled, as defined by the ADA, but that Hoover unlawfully regarded her as disabled.  To prove this, she had to show that Hoover mistakenly believed that Mohr’s “actual, nonlimiting impairment substantially limits one or more major life activities.”  The court determined that the “major life activity” that Mohr’s claim was based on must have been the activity of working.  According to regulations under the ADA, to be substantially limited in the activity of working entails being “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes.” Mohr argued that Hoover regarded her as disqualified from all jobs involving the operation of machinery.  The court disagreed, finding nothing in the record to support such a “sweeping claim.”  Dr. Nicoletti’s restriction barred Mohr only from using “dangerous machinery.”  The fact that Hoover allowed Mohr to bid on 50 different jobs shows that it did not regard her as precluded from performing either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes.  Accordingly, Mohr failed to establish a prima facie case under the ADA and her claim should be dismissed.

Mohr v. Hoover Co., Case. No. 02-4107 (6th Cir., 5/14/04).

For guidance on the ADA, click here and scroll down to “Americans with Disabilities Act.” [ return to top ]