The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has made a compelling plea to the Tenth Circuit, seeking to revive a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by a former employee of a Kansas health system. This move comes in the wake of a pivotal U.S. Supreme Court decision that the EEOC believes supports the reinstatement of the case.

EEOC Says High Court Ruling Supports Ex-Worker's ADA Suit: Supreme Court Ruling Bolsters ADA Protections

In a recent development, the EEOC submitted an amicus brief on Monday, emphasizing that the Supreme Court's decision in the April case of Muldrow v. St. Louis should directly influence the outcome of Bethany Scheer's lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The federal agency criticized the lower court's decision to grant summary judgment to Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health System Inc., arguing that it misinterpreted what constitutes an adverse employment action.

The Supreme Court's ruling clarified that the ADA's protections are triggered by employer decisions that affect employees' rights and autonomy, a standard that the health system's actions against Scheer undoubtedly meet. "The loss of autonomy inherent in a mandatory [employee assistance program] referral is a type of harm that Congress aimed to prevent through the ADA," stated the EEOC.

EEOC Says High Court Ruling Supports Ex-Worker's ADA Suit: Details of the Dispute

Scheer, previously employed in the billing department of the health system, alleges that her dismissal resulted from her refusal to undergo mandatory mental health counseling. The health system's management suspected she might be suicidal after she disclosed personal challenges to her colleagues, which led them to impose a performance improvement plan and the controversial counseling requirement.

When Scheer resisted signing a release for her counseling details, which she believed infringed on her privacy, she was terminated in 2019. Her lawsuit, initiated in December 2020, challenges these actions as discriminatory under the ADA.

Legal Interpretations and Implications

The EEOC contends that both the forced counseling referral and Scheer's subsequent firing should be viewed as adverse employment actions. This standpoint is reinforced by the Supreme Court's Muldrow decision, which rejected the necessity for employment decisions to cause significant damage to qualify as adverse actions under Title VII.

The agency criticized the lower court for applying a "significance" test to Scheer's claims, which runs contrary to recent judicial precedents that do not differentiate between significant and less significant harms when it comes to employment discrimination.

"While Scheer's case falls under the ADA and not Title VII, the principles outlined by the Supreme Court remain pertinent, as both statutes share similar prohibitions against discrimination," the EEOC argued.

The Path Forward

The EEOC's robust backing highlights the broader implications of Scheer's case for ADA jurisprudence, particularly in how employment actions related to health and disability are treated under federal law. As the case progresses, legal experts and advocates will be watching closely, given its potential to redefine employer responsibilities and employee rights under the ADA.

The case, officially titled Scheer v. Sisters of Charity, case number 24-1055, continues to unfold in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.