National Litigation Hotline

Employee's Association with Disabled Daughter Not Protected Under ADA

The Sixth Circuit has held that the provision of the American with Disabilities Act (the ADA) that forbids discrimination against 'a qualified individual because of the known disability of an individual with whom the qualified individual is known to have a relationship,' 42 U.S.C. ' 12112(b)(4), could not protect an employee who missed a shift without excuse, whether or not that person was associated with a disabled individual. Overley v. Covenant Transport, Inc., 2006 WL 1133292 (6th Cir. Apr. 27).

Sharon Overley, a truck driver for defendant Covenant Transport, was terminated from employment when, in lieu of completing her scheduled Saturday shift, she visited her daughter, who is severely disabled as the result of a childhood injury, at her assisted-living home. Overley filed suit in district court claiming, among other things, that her firing constituted discrimination under the ADA in that she was terminated because of her daughter's disability.

Finding that Section 12112(b)(4), the section of the ADA that forbids discrimination against an individual because of a known disability of an individual with whom he/she has a relationship or association, could only be used to protect against a limited set of employer actions, the Sixth Circuit held that an employer is not required to reasonably accommodate an employee based on his/her association with a disabled person. The court found that other courts interpreting this section had determined that 'an employee would be protected under the statute if the employee was only distracted at work, but did not require a reasonable accommodation, or if the employer's decision was based solely on an unsubstantiated belief that the employee would have to miss work because of the association.' Neither of these covered situations were applicable to Overley as Covenant did not base its termination decision on its belief that she would have to miss work to care for her daughter, but rather on her previous record of declined shifts and her refusal to work her regularly-scheduled Saturday shift. Therefore, the Sixth Circuit found that Overley's claim was not covered by the ADA.

Employee's Association with Disabled Daughter Not Protected Under ADA

The Sixth Circuit has held that the provision of the American with Disabilities Act (the ADA) that forbids discrimination against 'a qualified individual because of the known disability of an individual with whom the qualified individual is known to have a relationship,' 42 U.S.C. ' 12112(b)(4), could not protect an employee who missed a shift without excuse, whether or not that person was associated with a disabled individual. Overley v. Covenant Transport, Inc., 2006 WL 1133292 (6th Cir. Apr. 27).

Sharon Overley, a truck driver for defendant Covenant Transport, was terminated from employment when, in lieu of completing her scheduled Saturday shift, she visited her daughter, who is severely disabled as the result of a childhood injury, at her assisted-living home. Overley filed suit in district court claiming, among other things, that her firing constituted discrimination under the ADA in that she was terminated because of her daughter's disability.

Finding that Section 12112(b)(4), the section of the ADA that forbids discrimination against an individual because of a known disability of an individual with whom he/she has a relationship or association, could only be used to protect against a limited set of employer actions, the Sixth Circuit held that an employer is not required to reasonably accommodate an employee based on his/her association with a disabled person. The court found that other courts interpreting this section had determined that 'an employee would be protected under the statute if the employee was only distracted at work, but did not require a reasonable accommodation, or if the employer's decision was based solely on an unsubstantiated belief that the employee would have to miss work because of the association.' Neither of these covered situations were applicable to Overley as Covenant did not base its termination decision on its belief that she would have to miss work to care for her daughter, but rather on her previous record of declined shifts and her refusal to work her regularly-scheduled Saturday shift. Therefore, the Sixth Circuit found that Overley's claim was not covered by the ADA.