Disparti Law Group attorneys Larry Disparti and Cass T. Casper filed the firm’s first appeal (but certainly not its last) to the country’s highest court — the Supreme Court of the United States.
This groundbreaking case challenges how an employer assesses an employee’s fitness to perform their job duties when reviewing accommodation requests under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Background on Leibas vs Dart
Irma Leibas, a former Correctional Officer (CO), worked for the Cook County Sheriff’s Office (CCSO) from 2010 until her employment ended in 2018. Her termination resulted from the CCSO’s newly implemented Workforce Optimization Plan, designed to address critical staffing shortages caused by budget cuts.
In this plan, the Chief of Operations initiated a review of employees with medical restrictions. Employees who fell into this category, which included Leibas, were given three options:
- Clear medical restrictions
- Request ADA accommodations
- Take a skills assessment for potential reclassification
Leibas suffers from several conditions which cause symptoms like poor circulation, fatigue, and frequent restroom breaks. Her physician recommended her accommodations include wearing gloves, using a battery-powered jacket in cold weather, and allowing up to 3 additional restroom breaks. With such accommodations, Leiba was confident she could still perform her work duties.
However, based on her doctor’s broad explanation of her condition, the Sheriff’s office determined that Leibas would be unable to perform the duties required of a correctional officer and was dismissed. So the question is, should a doctor’s note carry far more weight than an employee’s self-assessment of her own body and capability? In the lawsuit, Attorney Cass T. Casper argued it should not and that Leibas’ termination violated her disability rights under the ADA.
Doctor’s Note vs Individualized Assessment
The Seventh Circuit Court’s practice of deferring to medical opinions contrasts with how other circuits approach ADA cases where more emphasis is given to individualized assessment of an employee’s ability to perform job functions.
However, the Seventh Circuit Court’s approach places ultimate authority on a doctor’s note, disregarding the employee’s lived experience and insight into their own abilities. This undermines the ADA’s intent by silencing employees in the accommodation process, making it a dialogue solely between doctors and employers.
Blurring ADA Accommodations with Fitness-for-Duty Examinations
Under the ADA, employers have the right to require fitness-for-duty medical examinations, but only if they have a reasonable belief that an employee is unable to perform essential job duties due to a medical condition. An employer cannot ask for this exam unless they have personally observed performance issues that can be attributed to a medical condition.
In this case, the CCSO had not observed performance issues as Leibas was performing her job functions without issue with accommodations for a while before they began their review.
The ADA exists so qualified employees who only need reasonable accommodations to perform their job duties can make requests without fear of losing their jobs. However, by singling out employees with accommodation requests, the line between ADA accommodation evaluations and fitness-for-duty examinations was blurred. This decision inadvertently put these employees’ jobs in jeopardy.
Unrealistic Expectations for Medical Practitioners
A physician can only speak about a patient’s condition in vague terms. It is unrealistic to expect medical practitioners to understand the occupational implications when reporting a diagnosis.
A doctor’s note, like the one written by Leibas’s doctor, is an objective medical opinion that lacks the context required to paint a well-rounded picture of a person’s job-specific restrictions.
Many doctors, like Leibas’ physician, lack the time or knowledge of specific job functions to produce detailed notes, yet courts treat these notes as definitive.
What This Could Mean for Disability Accommodations
Submitting this case to the U.S. Supreme Court starts a long overdue conversation about the weight of a doctor’s opinion in ADA accommodations. The Supreme Court’s decision could help clarify the standard practice for determining ADA qualifications if the case is reviewed.
A doctor’s note can essentially end an employee’s career with little to no consideration for the employee’s first-hand account of their condition. This subverts the very essence of disability laws in the workplace. The courts should adopt a more balanced approach, considering both medical and employee input to ensure fair and individualized assessments.
At Disparti Law Group, we pride ourselves on being at the forefront of fighting for disability rights for all Illinois workers. Now, with this case, we can play a major role in better securing disability rights for all.
