By David Worley
In Lee v. District of Columbia, 27 AD Cases 895 (D.D.C. 2013), a District of Columbia Federal District Court found that a diabetic corrections worker had valid claim under the ADA when he was fired for falling asleep on the job, but had been denied a regular meal break and therefore could not manage the symptoms of the disease. These symptoms included dizziness, fainting or sudden fatigue resulting in falling asleep. The court found that because an employer accommodation was necessary for Lee to be able to perform the essential functions of the job, he was in fact disabled in the meaning of the ADA.
Lee, after being diagnosed with diabetes, informed his employer that he would have to take regular healthy meal breaks to control his blood-sugar levels. The incident that led to his termination occurred when Lee, in the middle of his shift and scheduled to take a lunch break, had not been relieved by another corrections officer for over 45 minutes after the requested meal. His supervisor was aware of his condition, and told him that another officer was on his way. Lee was allegedly found asleep, and did not wake up even after being shaken by another employee. Lee was placed on administrative leave and later terminated for neglect of duties.
The ADA requires that a person, to qualify for relief, be substantially limited in a major life activity. The court found that because accommodation by the employer was required, Lee was disabled in the meaning of the ADA. The court rejected the employer’s argument that because the diabetes symptoms could be managed through regular meals he was not “disabled”:
The District’s argument boils down to this: because Mr. Lee could manage his diabetes by eating meals at regular times, he was not disabled with the meaning of the ADA, and because he was not disabled within the meaning of the ADA, that statute did not require that the District allow him to eat meals at regular times. This argument almost refutes itself.
The court established that because Lee was required to take measures to mitigate the effects of his disease, and those effects substantially limited a major life activity (like staying awake), he clearly could establish disability in the meaning of the ADA. Thus, because Lee was denied his reasonable accommodation, and that caused symptoms leading to his termination, the court rightly found that a jury could find the termination violated the terms of the ADA and denied the employer’s motion for summary judgment.
