 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
DeCamp v. Dollar Tree Stores6/14/2005
s an impairment, is whether plaintiff's depression substantially limited a major life activity. See Calero-Cerezo, 355 F.3d at 20-22 (separating the impairment inquiry from whether that impairment substantially limits a major life activity). The plaintiff does not expressly address this issue in her brief; the only life activity referred to is her ability to work. "When the major life activity under consideration is that of working, the statutory phrase 'substantially limits' requires, at a minimum, that plaintiffs allege they are unable to work in a broad class of jobs." Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 491 (1999). Thus, when a plaintiff alleges that his or her impairment limits his or her ability to work, "a personality conflict between an employee and a supervisor-even one that triggers the employee's depression-is not enough to establish that the employee is disabled, so long as the employee could still perform the job under a different supervisor." Schneiker v. Fortis Insurance Co., 200 F.3d 1055, 1062 (7th Cir. 2000).
Much of plaintiff's own deposition testimony supports a conclusion that her depression only prevented her from working for Braz. For example, she said under oath that she would have returned to work for someone other than Braz and that she would have returned to work if Dollar Tree fired Braz. She also maintained that she may have been able to return to work for Braz if he acknowledged his mistreatment and apologized. Even considering it in a light most favorable to plaintiff, her own testimony supports a conclusion that her depression did not substantially limit her ability to work a broad range of jobs. Accordingly, we hold that plaintiff has not established an evidentiary basis for her contention that she is disabled for purposes of FEPA and RICRA.
Despite her testimony, plaintiff argues vigorously in her brief that her psychiatrist's statement that she could not return to work until June 14, 2001, creates a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of her disability. If we could analyze this fact without reference to the second element of a prima facie case of disability-based disparate treatment, plaintiff's argument might carry the day. The plaintiff, however, bears the burden of creating a genuine issue of material fact on each element of the prima facie case.
The second element of a disability-based disparate treatment claim requires that the employee be "qualified" in the sense that he or she can perform the essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodation. Amego, Inc., 110 F.3d at 141 n.2. A fact-finder must be able to conclude that the employee, "while suffering the powerful effects of [his or] her disability, still possessed the ability to function competently and productively in the workplace, either without any modification of her work situation or with a reasonable accommodation." Calero-Cerezo, 355 F.3d at 22. In the particular context of treatment of work-related depression and anxiety, if an employee's doctor states that the employee cannot return to work for that particular employer, then that fact supports a legal conclusion that the employee no longer is qualified to do the job and no accommodation exists to allow him or her return to work. Weiler v. Household Finance Corp., 101 F.3d 519, 525 (7th Cir. 1996).
The very evidence that could save plaintiff from summary judgment on the disability element drowns her in regard to the qualified individual element. The letter written by plaintiff's psychiatrist addressed to plaintiff's attorney reads: "By June 14[, 2001], her depressive symptoms had cleared significantly and she was cleared by me to resume work as long as she did not seek reemployment by the
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Rhode Island Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|