Consider the following scenario.  An employee is injured (whether at work or outside of work) and sees a doctor.  When the employee returns, the employee provides a doctor note with work restrictions because of the underlying condition of the injury. 

Many times, these are lifting restrictions, but could be anything.  If injured at work, workers compensation policies could come into play if the requirements are met.  But if not, or the employee is injured outside of work, the employer now has to determine if the restrictions are reasonable given the employee’s job.  Further, the employer has to determine whether these restrictions mean the employee may be ADA qualified, which adds another wrinkle of complexity. 

In the case of  Booth v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., No. 18-5985 (Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, June 7, 2019), Booth worked at a Nissan factory in Tennessee, and he injured his neck and sought medical treatment.  Booth’s physician recommended several work restrictions, including that he not reach above his head or flex his neck too much, but the restrictions did not sideline Booth.  For a decade thereafter, he worked without incident.  But in 2015, he moved from the door line position to a material handler position.   Nissan denied the transfer because the material handler’s duties conflicted with Booth’s work restrictions.

Then Nissan announced a restructuring of the positions.  While Booth and his co-workers on the line had performed two jobs, Nissan wanted to modify the line so that workers would perform four jobs.  In effect, Nissan wanted him to start installing the left-side door glass and left-side door panel along with the two jobs he was already performing.  Booth claimed that the additional jobs would violate his work restrictions.  He also claimed that he wanted to transfer to the material handling position because it is “an easier and simpler job.”  

During that time, Nissan kept him in his two-job position.  However, Booth’s restrictions concerned Nissan. Management thought the restrictions were hindering him from doing his current job. Given the restructuring, there would be no position Booth would have been qualified for given the restrictions.   Nissan then asked him to have the doctor re-evaluate his restrictions.   Booth saw the doctor, who cleared the restrictions.  He was able to do the new requirements for the door line, but he was not allowed to transfer to the material handler position.

Booth is still an employee of Nissan.  However, he sued Nissan, after filing a charge with the EEOC and Tennessee Human Rights Commission, alleging that Nissan failed to accommodate him—a separate violation of the ADA—by pressuring him to remove his work restrictions.   At the trial court, the case was dismissed at summary judgement in favor of Nissan.

The 6^th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgement.  The court stated that Booth had not supplied evidence to suggest that he is disabled.  Under the ADA, the court stated that Booth would have to show that:

1) He is disabled

 2) He is otherwise qualified for the position, with or without reasonable accommodation

3) He suffered an adverse employment decision

4) The employer knew or had reason to know of the plaintiff’s disability

5) The position remained open while the employer sought other applicants or the disabled individual was replaced.

Essentially, the court found that Booth seemed to assume that because he had work restrictions and because Nissan denied his transfer request because of those restrictions, he is disabled under the ADA.  However, as the court pointed out, work restrictions do not by itself equate to a disability under the ADA. 

Booth’s neck injury and related work restrictions that kept him from working in the material handling role do not resolve whether Booth is disabled under the ADA.  Rather than point to one job that he cannot perform, Booth had to demonstrate that his work-related disability must preclude him from working in a class or broad range of jobs, “such as . . . assembly line jobs.”   As the court points out, Booth conceded that he has worked without interruption on the assembly line since injuring his neck in 2004 and thereby negated his argument.

The takeaway for HR is to never assume a work restriction is a disability.  The question is whether the employee can perform the job given the underlying nature of the condition giving rise to the restrictions.  Further, requiring an employee to determine if the restrictions are still necessary, is not necessarily a violation of the ADA. When in doubt, contact legal counsel.