ADA: Weigand v. Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority

U.S. District Court, Western District of New York

ADA

Weigand v. Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority
03-CV-794
Judge Skretny

Background: The plaintiff alleges he was discriminated against on the basis of a disability, and terminated from his position as a bus mechanic with the Niagara Frontier Transit Metro System Inc. in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act and other laws. He asserts that failure to accommodate his disability discriminatorily denied him shift selection rights, job opportunities, overtime pay and training, educational and in-service opportunities offered to non-disabled employees in the same job title, and assigned him to degrading and menial tasks outside of his classification.
Weigand suffered an injury to his neck in 1992 while at work and was placed on a workers’ compensation leave of absence. About seven months later, he sought to return to work and presented to NFTA/Metro a note from his physician stating  he had a “herniated disc neck,” and may return to work Aug. 17, 1992, restricted to lifting 50 pounds. Prior to his injury, Weigand’s job had required him to lift bus batteries, alternators and tires, all weighing more than 50 pounds. In December 1992, as part of an effort to return injured workers to full-time status, Weigand and other ERTW employees were directed to report to Metro’s Rail Department to clean light-rail transit cars. After Weigand complained to his union, he was not required to perform that task. In February 1996, a functional capacity evaluation was conducted, which indicated Weigand could return to work with no restriction on the amount of weight he could lift, but with some restrictions on frequency. NFTA/Metro advised Weigand that if his physician would submit a return to work consistent with the findings of the evaluation, he would be cleared to return. Weigand later submitted a note from his physician and returned. He commenced this action Oct. 24, 2003, alleging the defendants failed to accommodate his disability and discriminated against him based on his disability. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in its entirety.

Ruling: The mere fact that a physician places restrictions on an individual or labels him disabled does not establish the existence of a disability within the meaning of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. Because he failed to establish that he is an individual with a disability, the court does not consider the remaining elements of the plaintiff’s prima facie case. The defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted.

Mark G. Farrell of the Law Office of Mark G. Farrell & Associates for the plaintiff, and Vicky-Marie Brunette of the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority for the defendants