Can temporary injuries qualify as ADA disabilities? Circuit court says yes.
The ruling could significantly expand the types of injuries that could constitute viable disabilities requiring accommodation under federal law.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held for the first time Wednesday that temporary injuries can qualify as disabilities for the purposes of the Americans With Disabilities Act.
A unanimous panel of the Manhattan-based appeals court joined three other circuits in ruling that 2008 amendments to the landmark anti-discrimination law allowed plaintiffs to pursue claims stemming from injuries “lasting or expected to last less than six months,” so long as the ADA’s requirements are met.
Related: COVID ‘long-haulers’ and the battle for disability benefits
The decision, which came in the appeal of an inmate who said he was refused accommodations after dislocating his knee at the Westchester County Jail, was expected to have broad implications and significantly expand the types of injuries that could give way to a viable disability discrimination claim, attorney Marjorie Mesidor said on Wednesday.
“For years, we’ve been dealing with very narrow views of how disabilities are being treated,” said Mesidor, a partner at Phillips & Associates who represents plaintiffs in discrimination suits against their employers and was not involved in the appeal.
For employees, Mesidor said, the ruling meant ”greater protections” in the workplace for non-permanent injuries. And companies would be required to work out reasonable accommodations for a host of injuries and ailments.
“They have to enter into an interactive process,” she said. “You have to open a dialogue.”
The novel ruling, in favor of plaintiff Davonte Hamilton and his Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz counsel, brought the Second Circuit in line with federal appeals courts in Boston, Virginia and Chicago, which have all applied relaxed temporal requirements after the ADA amendments were enacted.
In a 20-page precedential opinion, the three-judge panel said that the “expanded definition” of a “disability” under the law, known as the ADAAA, a plaintiff’s actual disability claim “does not fail solely because” an injury is transitory.
The ruling, which did not reach the merits of Hamilton’s claims, overturned a Manhattan federal judge’s decision that found temporary injuries did not qualify as disabilities under the statute. It remanded the case to the district court with instructions to determine whether Hamilton’s injury actually qualified as a disability under the ADA.
“We conclude only that Hamilton’s claim could not be dismissed as a matter of law simply because the injury causing these limitations was temporary,” U.S. Circuit Judge Denny Chin wrote for the court.
“In reaching that conclusion, we join the First, Fourth, and Seventh Circuits in holding that under the expanded definition of ‘disability’ under the ADA, which now covers impairments ‘lasting or expected to last less than six months,’ a short-term injury can qualify as an actionable disability under the ADA,” Chin said.
He was joined in the ruling by U.S. Circuit Judges Guido Calabresi and Reena Raggi.
Hamilton had alleged in a pro se complaint that jail officials had refused his requests for accommodations after he dislocated his knee and tore a meniscus on a patch of crumbled concrete in the facility’s courtyard.
According to court documents, the medical contractor responsible for treating inmates ignored a doctor’s recommendation that Hamilton wear a “knee stabilizer” and receive an immediate MRI for his injury. The contractor instead replaced the stabilized with an elastic bandage, causing Hamilton “excruciating pain.”
The lawsuit also alleged that the jail lacked adequate supports, including railings and ramps, to help him maneuver about the facility.
The county had argued, among other things, that Hamilton’s injury had only lasted for 19 days when he filed suit in 2018. The ruling, however, rejected that position as “disingenuous,” and found that the statute ”does not suggest that there is any duration that is too short.”
“Indeed, the complaint alleged that Hamilton sustained a dislocated knee and torn meniscus, he suffered from excruciating pain, his injuries were not properly treated, and he was placed in situations where his injuries were aggravated,” Chin said. “These circumstances permit the plausible inference that Hamilton’s injuries were ongoing and likely to last significantly longer than nineteen days.”
Tamara Livshiz, the Wachtell partner who represented Hamilton on appeal, did not provide comment on the ruling Wednesday.
Read more: