Need pdf viewer for iPad?
Visit iTunes for:
iAnnotate PDF

Garland's Digest
on employment discrimination law
online since 1997
 

 

Disclaimer: The case on which this summary is based may no longer be current law. Also, if the case was decided on summary judgment, the court recited the "facts" in the light most favorable to the non-movant, which may not be the true facts.

-------------------------

ADA plaintiff failed to explain apparent inconsistency between application for Social Security disability and his position in this lawsuit that he could perform the essential functions of his job.

Lane v. BFI Waste Systems of North America, 257 F.3d 766 (8th Cir. July 16, 2001) - Based on the teachings of Cleveland v. Policy Management Systems Corp., 119 S.Ct. 1597 (May 24, 1999), an employee, who has sworn in an application for disability benefits that he is unable to work at any job, must proffer a sufficient explanation to warrant a reasonable juror's concluding that, assuming the truth of, or the plaintiff's good faith belief in, the earlier statement, the plaintiff could nonetheless perform the essential functions of his job, with or without reasonable accommodation. Because Lane offered no evidence below to harmonize his inconsistent statements, the Court affirms the grant of summary judgment. Click here to see actual case.