A lower court was wrong to dismiss a case brought by Larry Rohr of Mesa, Ariz. — who alleged that his public-utility employer discriminated against the disabled in pushing him out of his job — on the grounds that his disease did not constitute a disability, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled.
Rohr’s dismissal after 23 years with the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District may have constituted discrimination against the disabled, as it was in response to a request from Rohr’s doctor that he be exempted from occasional out-of-area assignments that interfered with his insulin treatment and diet regimen, the judges concluded.
“The ADA defines ‘disability,’ in pertinent part, as ‘a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual,’ ” wrote the judges, who were all named to the federal bench by President Clinton. “Diabetes is a ‘physical impairment’ because it affects the digestive, hemic and endocrine systems, and eating is a ‘major life activity.’ “
The lawyer for Salt River, John Egberg, said the utility intended to fight the allegations that Rohr’s dismissal was an act of discrimination.
Friday’s ruling underscored that the ADA, as enacted in 1990 and amended last year, “expects employers to make reasonable accommodations and together with employees to find a way to maintain employment,” said Paula Pearlman, who heads the Disability Rights Legal Center at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.
You must log in to post a comment.