7th Circuit reinstates UPS worker’s disability complaint

The 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded a decision denying a UPS employee’s claims of disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation when she requested accommodations, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Linda Rowlands worked for UPS at its Fort Wayne facility for more than 25 years before she was fired on July 19, 2012, for changing the time on her timecard. In response, Rowlands filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging discrimination based on her age, sex, and perceived disabilities. She also filed a grievance with her union and was ultimately reinstated. During the grievance proceedings, Rowlands told her boss, Steve Liskey, that she believed that she had been fired not for the alleged time card fraud, but because of a knee injury.

Rowlands suffered several injuries in the years leading up to her termination, starting in 2005 when she was hit by a semi-truck and needed a hip replacement. Between February and July of 2012, Rowlands suffered three knee injuries, one of which took place at UPS and required surgery. Over the years Rowlands took significant time off from work on multiple occasions to recover from her injuries. She claimed UPS intended to terminate her again because her employee ID was never reactivated in UPS’ computer system, forcing her to use a supervisor’s ID to process packages.

Rowlands was fired for the second and final time in January 2013. She filed another charge of discrimination with the EEOC, this time alleging discrimination based on her knee-related disability, or UPS’ regarding her as having a disability, failure to accommodate that disability, and retaliation for engaging in protected conduct. The district court granted summary judgment to UPS, which the 7^th Circuit Court reversed and remanded Friday in Linda Rowlands v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 17-3281.

On appeal, Rowlands argued that the district court committed reversible error when it found that she failed to state a failure to accommodate claim because her EEOC charge did not explicitly state that her requests for reasonable accommodations were denied. Rowlands contended the district court erred by holding her to a heightened pleading standard, and by neglecting to allow her an opportunity to respond to that point, which was not raised by UPS or addressed by either party.

Lastly, she argued that the district court erred in analyzing her retaliation claim under the burden-shifting framework when she was fired for allegedly threatening a co-worker with a taser.

In its decision, the district court found that Rowlands failed to prove she was qualified and had a disability when it held that no reasonable jury could find her disabled for purposes of her disability discrimination claim. The district court also held that Rowlands failed to prove UPS failed to accommodate her disability in her 2013 EEOC charge. However, the 7^th Circuit found both conclusions erroneous.

“The district court properly incorporated the facts articulated in the attached EEOC charges into Rowlands’ complaint, but erred in finding that they failed to state a failure to accommodate claim,” the Friday court order read.

“According to Rowlands, her knee injuries substantially interfered with her ability to walk, stand, squat and kneel. These claims are sufficient to support Rowlands’ claim that she has a disability,” the 7^th Circuit continued. “Although UPS would have been entitled to request a doctor’s note verifying Rowlands’ condition as part of the interactive process, it does not follow that she did not have a disability because her doctor had cleared her to return to work without restrictions.”

The 7th Circuit took issue with UPS’s argument erred that Rowlands was fired for threatening a male co-worker with a taser while leaving work, noting the alleged threat was ambiguous and there were several other instances where Rowlands seemed to be singled out by her supervisors.

“A reasonable jury could also find (the alleged threat) was not a ‘threat’ at all, or that even if [UPS] properly construed it as such, its decision to terminate [Rowlands] was a disingenuous overreaction to justify dismissal of an annoying employee who asserted h[er] rights under the ADA,” the 7^th Circuit concluded.