Suspension Not A Violation Of ADA

An employee did not establish that he was disabled as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and, as a result, his claim that his employer failed to provide him with reasonable accommodation, was denied by the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Parkinson v. Anne Arundel Medical Center, et al; No. 02-2000).

Ronald W. Parkinson began work at AAMC in 1974 as a radiology technician and by 1995 he had been promoted to chief of the ultrasound department. In June 1998, Parkinson suffered a heart attack. Although he recovered, Parkinson claimed he was prohibited from doing strenuous exercise or lifting heavy weights (activities he previously enjoyed). Parkinson's doctor allowed him to return to work if he avoided stress and did not work overtime.

When Parkinson returned to work in September 1998, he claimed that he communicated his restriction regarding overtime to AAMC. As a result, Parkinson said he was taken off "on call" status and his work schedule declined to about 40 hours from 70 hours per week. Parkinson contended, however, that his supervisors pressed him to accept over-time and criticized him when he refused it. He admits he occasionally did work overtime hours.

On December 15, 1999, Parkinson stated that the manager of the radiology department insisted he work overtime. After refusing, he was suspended for one day without pay and was reportedly demoted from chief to senior ultrasound technician.

In his suit, Parkinson charged that AAMC refused to honor his request not to work overtime after his heart attack, thereby failing to accommodate the limitations imposed by his disability. He also claimed retaliatory discrimination under the ADA when suspended and allegedly demoted. The district court, however, ruled in favor of AAMC and, on appeal, the fourth circuit court affirmed the ruling. The courts reasoned that Parkinson had not established either that his restriction on work or on physical activity made his impairment an actual disability under the ADA, or that his employer regarded him as having such a disability during the relevant period. As such, the courts found that Parkinson could not make out a prima facie case of retaliation for any actions taken by the employer.

In addition, the fourth circuit court opinion stated: "Nothing in Parkinson's statements or actions in refusing to work overtime that day would have reasonably led [the employer] to understand that he desired accommodation of limitations imposed by his coronary artery disease. In fact, it would have been far more reasonable for [the employer] to have understood his request not to work overtime to have been made for an entirely unrelated reason: so that he would not miss an appointment he had scheduled for that afternoon."