New England Biz Law Update
The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court’s ruling, finding that an oil service technician provided sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment on his disability-related claims. The technician had regularly updated his employer about a knee injury. However, he was terminated after attempting to return from medical leave.
The case, Sutherland v. Peterson’s Oil Service, Inc., centers on Jesse Sutherland, a service technician who suffered a knee injury two months into his employment with Peterson’s Oil Service. After tearing his meniscus and damaging his patella, Sutherland requested his work schedule be reduced to 40 hours a week — a request that allegedly went unanswered.
Sutherland eventually took a 12-week medical leave for surgery. When he attempted to return to work in April 2020, he discovered he had been terminated, reportedly due to “lack of work during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Broad protection under ADA amendments
The 1st Circuit emphasized that the ADA Amendments Act fundamentally changed how temporary disabilities are treated under the law. Writing for the court, Judge Julie Rikelman noted that Congress explicitly rejected previous U.S. Supreme Court precedent that had narrowly interpreted disability protection. The court held that an injury need not be permanent or long-term to qualify as a disability under the ADA.
“The definition of disability must be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals,” the court stated, citing Congress’s directive to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to implement regulations supporting this broader scope of protection.
Interactive process and accommodation requirements
The decision also provides guidance on employers’ obligations regarding accommodation requests. The court held that Sutherland’s text messages describing his “excruciating pain” and torn meniscus were sufficiently specific to put his employer on notice of his need for accommodation, even without initial medical documentation.
Notably, the court emphasized that employers have an affirmative duty to engage in an interactive process when addressing accommodation requests. Peterson’s failure to respond to Sutherland’s requests for reduced hours could itself constitute evidence of discrimination.
Implications for employers
The ruling sends a message to employers about their obligations under the ADA:
- Temporary conditions can qualify as protected disabilities.
- Formal medical documentation is not always necessary to trigger accommodation obligations.
- Employers must actively engage in the interactive process when addressing accommodation requests.
- COVID-19 related business slowdowns do not shield employers from discrimination claims.
The timing of Sutherland’s termination — effective the same day he was cleared to return to work — was particularly problematic, with the court noting that such timing could allow a reasonable jury to infer a causal connection between his disability and discharge.
The case has been remanded to the district court for further proceedings, where Peterson’s will need to demonstrate that its pandemic-related justification for termination was not pretextual.
