By Mitchell Riese and Mathias Deeg
In Craft v. Fairfax County Government, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held that a Fairfax County firefighter could not bring a disability discrimination claim of either wrongful termination or failure to accommodate because he was unable to show he was a “qualified individual” under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Anthony Craft, a firefighter for the Fairfax County Fire and Rescue Department, suffered a back injury on duty and was awarded workers’ compensation benefits. Craft filed for disability retirement and underwent a functional capacity evaluation to determine his capacity to work. The evaluation found that he could only return to work in a limited capacity, and the department and Craft agreed that he should end his employment, which he did. Meanwhile, and before the department could approve Craft’s disability retirement, a second evaluation determined that Craft could perform “light level work.” . The department determined that Craft was not incapacitated and denied his disability retirement. Craft sued, alleging he was discriminated against by Fairfax County in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The county argued that Craft’s claim should have been dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court stated that it could not determine whether Craft was pursuing a wrongful termination or reasonable accommodation claim.
The court gave Craft the benefit of the doubt and assessed the case as though he had claimed either wrongful termination or failure to accommodate, but determined that his claims would fail under either theory.. Both a wrongful termination claim and a failure to accommodate claim require an employee to show that the employee was able to adequately perform their job with or without some form of reasonable accommodation. Craft was unable to show that he was a “qualified individual” as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Craft’s assertion that he “[would] never be able to perform the job as a firefighter” due to his injury undermined any additional claims that he was a qualified individual.
“Because [Craft] concedes that he could no longer perform his duties with or without accommodations, he cannot make a prima facie case of either wrongful termination or failure to accommodate under the [Americans with Disabilities Act]. The facts alleged in [Craft’s] complaint and the documents attached thereto and referenced therein fail to suggest any plausible inference of discrimination based on Plaintiff’s disability.”
This decision again illustrates the principle that in order to have a viable disability discrimination claim, the employee must be able to perform the essential functions of the job with or without a reasonable accommodation. In this case, Craft acknowledged, and all of the medical evidence indicated, that he was not able to perform as a firefighter. While he could perform light duty, an employer has no obligation to create a light duty position for a disabled employee. Thus, Craft had no viable disability discrimination claim.
