Another Court Holds that Driving is Not a Major Life Activity
For there to be a successful claim of disability discrimination against an employer, there must first be a determination that the employee is, in fact, disabled. Under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), a medical condition can be deemed a disability causes an impairment of a "major life activity." Many disability claims therefore turn on the interpretation of what is a "major life activity."
Such was the issue in the 7th Circuit case of Winsley v. Cook County. Plaintiff in that case was a nurse, and her position required that she drive to the homes of the patients. For medical reasons, the plaintiff became unable to drive, accept to and from work. The County could not continue to employer her with that restriction, and she claimed that was disability discrimination.
On a motion for summary judgment, the trial court concluded, and the District Court agreed, that driving is not a major life activity. The court noted that activities recognized as major life activities by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) "are so important to everyday life that almost anyone would consider himself limited in a material way if he could not perform them." The court concluded, however, that "this is not the case with driving." The court noted that the 2nd, 10th and 11th Circuits have all reached the same conclusion.
As you can see, the determination of what is a "major life activity" can be very nuanced. Most of us would feel very limited if we could not drive, but the law looks more at the body than the activity. For example, if a medical condition made it difficult to sit for periods of time, the court might find that to be a sufficient impairment. But translating that inability to some external activity such as driving is less likely to pass muster.
Twitter Comments Can Land Businesses in Court
Twitter comments (along with others) have now become the basis for an Internet defamation lawsuit.
Courtney Love, always a class act, has been posting “tweets” about fashion designer Dawn Simorangkir, also known as Boudoir Queen. Simorangkir claims that Love failed to pay money that was owed to her. Love claims otherwise, and refered to Simorangkir as a “nasty lying hosebag thief”, as well as accusing her of being a drug addict and a prostitute, according to the Associated Press.
Assuming the comments were false, the statements are clearly defamatory, but the case will still present some interesting issues if it ever makes it to trial. Defamation is always about reputation, and defamatory remarks do not always translate to loss of reputation. Given the context of the statements and the person making them, will anyone believe that Simorangkir is guilty of the acts claimed by Love?
Lesson for all businesses: Are your employees "twittering" or sending instant messages from their computers at work? Plaintiff attorneys look for the deep pocket, and if an employee sends a defamatory tweet from an office computer, you can bet your company will be named in the action. One way to protect the company is to make such conduct outside the scope of employment, and it is only outside the scope of emploment if the company has a written and enforced policy against using company computers for such purposes.
