Wheat v. Rush Health Sys., Inc. (Summary)

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

Wheat v. Rush Health Sys., Inc.
No. 3:13-cv-984-HSO-RHW (S.D. Miss. July 15, 2014)

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi denied a hospital’s motion for summary judgment against a former employee’s claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The former employee alleged disparate treatment, failure to provide a reasonable accommodation, and retaliation.

The former employee, who wears bilateral hearing aids due to a hearing impairment, had been assigned to the hospital’s Medical Surgery Floor as a Charge and Preceptor Nurse. He later held a Staff RN position in the Post-Anesthesia Care Unit, and after that accepted a position as RN Circulator in the Orthopedic Surgery Unit. Fourteen months after he was hired into this role, he was removed from the position of RN Circulator and placed on administrative leave with pay. The hospital claimed that this occurred because he was not performing well in the position and posed a direct threat to patient safety.

While the employee was on administrative leave, the hospital assisted him in trying to find a replacement position. A lack of job offers eventually forced the employee to accept a clinic position in an urgent care clinic, resulting in a pay cut of $6.00 an hour. When the employee realized that his pay would be further reduced by another $2.00 per hour, he resigned and filed a lawsuit.

The hospital argued that the defendant was not disabled, was not qualified for his position as RN Circulator, and was not subjected to an adverse employment action. The plaintiff countered this evidence by showing a Staff Assessment Form that scored his performance as nine out of ten. The court held that summary judgment was inappropriate since both parties had offered evidence of contradictory material facts on important issues. The former employee also testified that a supervisor had told him he was pulled off a case as RN Circulator because the doctors did not like having to tell him something twice. These factors led the court to deny summary judgment and permit the case to proceed to trial.