In Bridges v. Reinhard, 2008 WL 5412843 (E.D. Va. 2008), the Court denied Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act—revolving around allergic reactions to a common chemical ingredient—finding that Plaintiff had stated a cause of action for wrongful termination.
Plaintiff, Betty C. Bridges, a former employee of the Commonwealth of Virginia's Piedmont Geriatric Hospital (“Piedmont”), filed a complaint asserting that: (1) Piedmont failed to accommodate her disability; and (2) her employment was wrongfully terminated because of her disability, all in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). The Defendant, Dr. James S. Reinhard, was sued in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Mental Health, Intellectual Disability and Substance Abuse Services. Bridges was a registered nurse at Piedmont from May 10, 2006 until June 15, 2006 when her employment was terminated. Bridges alleged that when she was hired, she informed Piedmont that she suffered from a severe respiratory allergy to amylcinnamaldehyde, a chemical commonly found in perfumes and household cleaning items. At the commencement of her employment, Bridges completed an intake form indicating her condition; however, she did not provide Piedmont with any medical documentation dictating the severity of her allergy. Subsequently, while working at Piedmont, Bridges claims she experienced three incidents involving an allergic reaction to amylcinnamaldehyde, but that her symptoms quickly abated, and therefore no resulting incident reports or documentation were created. On June 9, 2006, in a fourth and separate incident, Bridges claims that she came into contact with laundry detergent, which contained the chemical, in her unit's laundry room, and as a result, she suffered an allergic reaction. After the June 9, 2006 incident, Bridges asserts that she requested that the hospital change the detergent which contained the chemical and that she offered to pay for the expense of the exchange. In the following days, Bridges’ supervisors conferred about the incident and Bridges’ overall performance and ultimately decided to terminate Bridges based on purported poor performance. Shortly thereafter, Bridges filed suit.
As stated by the Court, the ADA makes it unlawful for a covered entity to “discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions and privileges of employment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a) (2008). To establish a case under the Act, the Plaintiff must show that: (1) that they have a disability; (2) they are otherwise qualified to perform the job in question; and (3) they were discharged solely because of their disability. See Halperin v. Abacus Tech. Corp., 128 F.3d 191, 197 (4th Cir. 1997) (rev'd on other grounds). The only issue raised by the Defendant in his Motion for Summary Judgment was whether or not Bridges was a “qualified” person under the Act. In order to qualify as a member of the ADA's protected class, a Plaintiff must first demonstrate that she is disabled within the meaning of the Act. See Pollard v. High's of Baltimore, Inc., 281 F.3d 462, 467 (4th Cir. 2002). The ADA alternately defines disability as: “(a) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; (b) a record of such impairment; or (c) being regarded as having such an impairment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2). The Court ultimately found that a review of both the record and the Plaintiff’s condition revealed that sufficient evidence existed to create a genuine issue of material fact at least as to the first and second definitions of disability. More specifically, while many courts have found similar allergies to be only situational impairments, with impacts that are transient in nature and without any substantial long term impact on a claimant's abilities, and therefore excluded from coverage under the ADA, the evidence of the commonality of the chemical in question distinguished the present case from those involving similar allergies in that Bridges may be exposed to the chemical without notice or opportunity to avoid in a variety of routine or “everyday” environments. Moreover, the Court found sufficient evidence of a “record of impairment;” refusing to accept Defendant’s narrow interpretation and instead following recent case law requiring a claimant to only demonstrate that they have a history of an impairment which has substantially limited one or more of their major life activities, and that their employer had knowledge that the claimant suffered from such impairment.
Comments