By Reba Weiss and Brittany Torrence
In Gera v. County of Schuylkill, the U. S. District Court of Pennsylvania rejected a pro se former corrections officer’s ADA disability and retaliation claims, granting summary judgment to Schuylkill County because the officer failed to show that he was a qualified individual within the meaning of the ADA, failed to show retaliation, and his disability benefits claim precluded his ADA claim.
Officer Michael Gera began his career as a correctional officer for the Schuylkill County Prison in 1986. Approximately 20 years later, he was diagnosed with a degenerative joint disease, which limited his mobility. The officer requested light-duty work and was assigned to the prison’s control room.
In January 2008, a new collective bargaining agreement went into effect, and under its terms, the officer was no longer eligible for the control room assignment, as that was reserved for employees with temporary, work-related injuries. Because the officer’s disability precluded him from returning to the regular duty correctional officer position, he was placed on medical leave on February 26. Following this, the officer applied for and was awarded Social Security disability benefits retroactive to February. Later, on January 19, 2011, the County laid the officer off due to a staff shortage. By 2012, after obtaining a right to sue letter from the EEOC, the officer filed an action alleging that the County violated the ADA by wrongfully retaliating against him.
The officer argued that the County should have accommodated him by allowing him to remain in the control room. The County argued that ADA does not require an employer to create a new position or transform a temporary light duty position into a permanent position.
The court rejected the officer’s ADA claims because it found he was not a qualified individual, defined as:
An individual with a disability is a person who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.
The officer conceded that he could not engage in the custody or control of inmates due to his physical disabilities, and no reasonable accommodation existed that would have enabled him to perform this function. Accordingly, he was not a qualified individual.
Additionally, the Court found that because the officer failed to demonstrate that he was a qualified individual, his argument that the County violated the ADA by not engaging in an “interactive process also failed.” The officer offered no evidence of antagonism, and the nearly three year gap between his requested accommodation and discharge was insufficient to raise inference of retaliation.
An individual with a disability still must be able to perform the essential functions of his job, with or without a reasonable accommodation. Since this officer could not perform the essential function of controlling inmates, even with an accommodation, he was not a qualified individual and was not covered by the ADA. One can establish retaliation if there is a close proximity in time between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. However, three years was far too long to establish “proximity in time” and therefore the retaliation claim was dismissed as well.
**Visit our Premium Website for more information on Disability Discrimination . **
