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.
