4th U.S. Circuit Court finds Federal Express employee not disabled

Daily Record, The (Baltimore), Nov 28, 2005 by Caryn Tamber

Federal Express Corp. did not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act when it fired a Maryland employee with a back injury - because the employee was not disabled under the ADA, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held.Andre Taylor's injury was not a disability under the ADA because it did not substantially limit his ability to participate in work, a major life activity, the 4th Circuit held.His attorney, Bruce Michael Bender, said he plans to ask the U.S.

Supreme Court to review the case.We believe that the decision is contrary to many other circuit courts of appeals decisions and creates a very restrictive view on the ADA, Bender said.Taylor worked as a courier for FedEx for 12 years, until he hurt his back on the job in 2000. He began having trouble lifting more than 30 pounds, but his job description required him to lift up to 75 pounds.FedEx put Taylor on light duty for 90 days, then placed him on disability leave. Eventually, after FedEx gave Taylor a 90- day leave of absence to look for other positions within FedEx, and after he had unsuccessfully applied to work as a dispatcher, he was fired.A vocational consultant later found that Taylor's injuries made him ineligible him for 1,871 kinds of jobs for which he was otherwise qualified, but he was still eligible for 1,410 kinds of jobs, or more than 130,000 actual positions in the region.The evidence also showed that Taylor was able to drive two hours per day to college, sit in class for two to three hours, do yard work, play catch, camp and clean his house, according to the 4th Circuit's opinion.Although the vocational evidence that Taylor presented suggests that his impairment precluded him from a number of jobs for which he would be qualified absent his injury, it does not suffice to create a jury question as to whether the impairment substantially limited the asserted major life activity, i.e. working, Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote for a three-judge panel.The U.S. Supreme Court decreed in 2002's Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams that with regard to the ADA, the terms substantially limits and major life activity should be construed narrowly, Motz wrote. To hold that a jury could find Taylor disabled would be to ignore Toyota, she wrote.FedEx spokeswoman Sandra Munoz said the company is pleased with the 4th Circuit's decision and prides itself on accommodating employees.Although some of our positions obviously require physical abilities - I think we've been recognized as being very inventive and accommodating of disabled employees, she said. Despite the fact that Mr. Taylor wasn't legally [disabled], I think the court record will show that FedEx made extensive efforts to accommodate him.WHAT THE COURT HELDCase:Taylor v. Federal Express, U.S. 4th No. 04-2056. Published. Opinion by Motz, J. Filed Nov. 16, 2005.Issue:Did the district court err when it granted summary judgment to FedEx, holding that an employee was not disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act?Holding:Yes. A reasonable jury could not find that the employee, who was still qualified for many jobs and could perform everyday physical activities, was disabled.Counsel:Bruce Michael Bender for appellant; Michael Edwin Gabel, Memphis, Tenn., for appellee.