He wanted to donate his kidney to his sister — but was fired instead
This employee wasn’t disabled, but he was fired right before he donated a kidney to his sister. Could he really sue for disability bias?
When Scott Rope was hired by Auto-Chlor as a branch manager, he told a company official he’d be donating a kidney to his sister in a few months.
Over the next several months, Rope informed HR that he’d need to take leave to recover after he donated a kidney to his sister. Rope attended regular doctor’s visits during lunch breaks to monitor his blood pressure and general health in preparation for the donation.
Rope also informed Auto-Chlor that, depending on how well the surgery and recovery went, he might need additional accommodations upon his return including more leave, and promised to inform Auto-Chlor once his doctor decided what additional accommodations, if any, he required.
Shortly thereafter — and before he could donate his kidney to his sister — Rope was fired.
Could he sue under the ADA?
Rope sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act, claiming that the real reason he was fired was Auto-Chlor’s desire to avoid providing him paid leave or to accommodate his anticipated work restrictions.
Rope said Auto-Chlor knew he was associated with his sister — a person with a physical disability — and that the company believed he’d be disabled because he’d need time off work to recover
A court agreed, saying that, “the reasonable inference is that Auto-Chlor acted preemptively to avoid an expense stemming from Rope’s association with his physically disabled sister.” Now the case is off to trial.
Pete Tschanz, writing on the Barnes & Thornburg Current blog, had this takeaway for HR:
Even “routine” personnel decisions may land an employer in hot water – despite being directed toward an employee who appears to fall outside the scope of a protected category. Moreover, it is important to note associational claims are not limited to the ADA. Title VII, for example, contains a similar prohibition….
As such, well written and widely disseminated EEO policies, along with regular anti-discrimination/harassment training, are key to avoiding costly litigation down the line. Where an employer has knowledge of a potential associational claim, it needs to be extra vigilant in documenting its legitimate non-discriminatory business reason for the adverse employment action at issue.
The case is Rope v. Auto-Chlor System of Washington, Inc.
Resources
Post Your Resume to 65+ Job Sites
Resume Service
