A financial analyst suffered from asthma and related migraine headaches, which were made worse by exposure to secondhand smoke. Although the employee had been allowed to work from home for a period of time, she was ultimately fired for failing to report back to work at a bank facility after a new smoke-free policy had been implemented. The employee sued the bank for discriminating against her based on her health condition in violation of state and federal law. The court of appeals found that the employee’s claims for reasonable accommodation and unlawful termination failed because she was unable to prove that she was disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Specifically, the court found that the employee did not prove that she was “substantially limited” in her ability to gain work in her field because of her smoke-induced asthma and migraines. However, the court ruled that the employee’s retaliation claim could proceed because she had presented sufficient evidence to raise a question about whether she was terminated based on her attempts to enforce her rights under the ADA.
Defendant
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, in its capacity as receiver for Standard Federal Savings Bank and Standard Federal Savings Association
Some jurisdictions allow an individual or organization to initiate an action against another private party who is not following a particular law. For example, a person may sue a restaurant that allows smoking despite a smoke free law. If the plaintiff is claiming the violation of the law caused physical harm, this may also be a personal injury case.
A claim against an employer involving a person who is harmed by secondhand smoke exposure in the workplace. For example, an employee with asthma may sue their employer for failing to protect them from exposure to secondhand smoke in the office or an employee with cancer may sue for workers’ compensation benefits. This may also include claims for workers' compensation. Disability laws also may protect customers who are not able to patronize a business filled with smoky air because of their disability.
Type of Tobacco Product
None
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"For similar reasons, we agree with the district court's conclusion in this case that Rhoads failed to show that her employer erroneously believed that she was substantially limited in her ability to work, because "the record indisputably reveals SFSA thought the plaintiff was capable of performing her job in a smoke-free environment[.]" Rhoads, 956 F. Supp. at 1247. Furthermore, we conclude that Rhoads cannot establish that her employer mistakenly believed that she was substantially limited in other major life activities, such as breathing, as the evidence shows, at best, that SFSA officials knew she suffered from smoke-induced asthma and migraines, but doubted her declarations pertaining to the severity of her condition.
Next, in order to prove that she had a record of disability, Rhoads was required to establish that she had "a history of, or has been misclassified as having, a mental or physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities." 29 C.F.R. S 1630.2(k) (2000). Contrary to Rhoads's assertion that she had a record of disability, the undisputed evidence reflects that, until starting work for SFSB, Rhoads had not suffered the effects of asthma and migraines since childhood, and she had been able to engage in activities like bicycling and ballet dancing. Thus, Rhoads's contention falters for lack of substantiation. In summary, Rhoads has failed to establish that she was "disabled" within the meaning of the ADA, either because of being afflicted with an actual disability, being regarded as disabled, or having a record of disability. Therefore, we must affirm the district court's award of summary judgment to the FDIC on her ADA claims for failure to make a reasonable accommodation and discriminatory discharge."
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
A financial analyst suffered from asthma and related migraine headaches, which were made worse by exposure to secondhand smoke. Although the employee had been allowed to work from home for a period of time, she was ultimately fired for failing to report back to work at a bank facility after a new smoke-free policy had been implemented. The employee sued the bank for discriminating against her based on her health condition in violation of state and federal law. The court of appeals found that the employee’s claims for reasonable accommodation and unlawful termination failed because she was unable to prove that she was disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Specifically, the court found that the employee did not prove that she was “substantially limited” in her ability to gain work in her field because of her smoke-induced asthma and migraines. However, the court ruled that the employee’s retaliation claim could proceed because she had presented sufficient evidence to raise a question about whether she was terminated based on her attempts to enforce her rights under the ADA.