In 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Cleveland decision discussed whether an employee who applies for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits is automatically precluded from contending that their employer failed to provide reasonable accommodations to allow them to continue working under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Supreme Court held that the definitions of disability in the two laws differ, and that SSDI applications do not take into account reasonable accommodations that may allow the employee to keep working. Therefore, an employee can claim disability in an SSDI application while contending that they were a protected qualified individual under the ADA.
In practice, this window between the two laws' disability definitions has been difficult for employees to navigate. A new decision from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals demonstrates how information provided during the SSDI application process shows that the employee was not qualified to perform their job regardless of accommodation alternatives. In Schmit v. Trimac Transportation Inc., the plaintiff was a truck driver who was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. The employer agreed to accommodations that initially allowed the plaintiff to continue working. However, he alleged that a new supervisor began harassing him and unfairly reprimanding him for traffic violations. He eventually claimed constructive discharge, discrimination, and retaliation following the employer’s denial of additional accommodation requests.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the discrimination claims on summary judgment. The court noted that shortly after leaving work, the plaintiff applied for SSDI benefits, and that medical information submitted in support of the application claimed a total inability to work, in part due to occasional hallucinations and delusions caused by medication used to treat his Parkinson’s disease. The Eighth Circuit noted that this information confirmed that the plaintiff was not a qualified individual under the ADA, and that there were no accommodations that could have allowed him to continue driving based on the SSDI’s medical report.
This decision demonstrates the value of obtaining and using SSDI application information in defense of ADA discrimination claims. The bar for collecting SSDI benefits is high, and in order to meet this burden, individuals will often admit medical conditions and symptoms that preclude them from performing the essential functions of the job. There may be some factual scenarios where a plaintiff may thread the needle of showing that they were disabled enough to collect SSDI benefits, but not disabled enough to preclude working. However, in most situations, the SSDI application serves as solid evidence of the employee’s inability to work.
[View source.]
