By Reba Weiss and Harrison Owens
In Coleman-Lee v. Government of the District of Columbia, a U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed a D.C. District Court’s dismissal of a correctional officer’s lawsuit for disability discrimination. In his complaint, the correctional officer argued that he was discriminated against when he was terminated for falling asleep on the job, which he claimed was caused by his diabetes. The jury found that the officer was not disabled within the ADA’s definition, as he did not show that he could not have controlled his diabetes. The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury’s decision, as his case was not appealed correctly.
Joseph Lee was employed by the District of Columbia as a correctional officer. In 2008, he was terminated for falling asleep on the job several times. Lee alleged that he continually fell asleep because of his diabetes, which could cause him to fall asleep, fall down, or possibly lapse into a diabetic coma if uncontrolled. Lee could effectively control his condition by eating three meals a day, in addition to periodic snacks and taking medication.
After he was terminated, Lee brought a lawsuit against the District of Columbia for disability discrimination under the ADA, claiming that his diabetes rendered him disabled within the meaning of the ADA. The District of Columbia argued that Lee was actually not disabled, because his diabetes could be controlled by his eating patterns, and his eating patterns did not limit his job performance.
At trial, Lee and the District of Columbia argued about what instruction should be given to the jury. Eventually, the District Court instructed the jury that a disability was a mental or physical impairment that “substantially limited” a major life activity. Where medication or other measures could control the diabetes, it was not “substantially limiting” and therefore was not a disability. The jury decided that the District of Columbia won, because Lee was not disabled.
On appeal, Lee argued that the jury instruction was improper, because his required eating schedule in itself substantially limited his ability to work, and therefore he was disabled under the ADA. The Court of Appeals did not agree and affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of Lee’s lawsuit.
The ADA has since been amended and widely broadens the definition of disability. Under the amended law, the fact that the employee could take mitigating measures to control his diabetes would not have disqualified him from the protection of the law.
**Visit our Premium Website for more information regarding Race Discrimination.
