January 2007 SBH Quarterly Newsletter
PDF FormatEmployment Case Law Update
Individuals cannot be personally liable under ADA.
The Ninth Circuit extended prior case law referring to Title VII claims to
find that individuals cannot be personally liable under the ADA. An employee
with OCD worked for the state of Nevada. After two years of good reviews,
her behavior deteriorated under a new supervisor. The supervisor and the
agency failed to meet with employee to discuss accommodation of the
disability. When the employee felt compelled to resign, she brought action
against both Nevada and two individual supervisors. The Ninth Circuit
concluded that the ADA does not provide for individual liability.
Walsh v. Nevada Dept of Human Resources, 2006 WL 3704779 (9th Cir 2006).
Terminated for performing important public duties.
Employee, a financial administrator for the County, brought a wrongful
discharge claim contending she was terminated for performing important
public duties. Employee did not approve of several decisions by a new fire
chief concerning training. After a training accident caused the death of an
employee, the complaining employee was tasked with assisting in a NIOSH
investigation. She confronted the chief with what she believed was a “cover
up” of training deficiencies. Soon thereafter she was terminated because she
made widespread derogatory remarks and accusations regarding training and a
cover up. The Court of Appeals agreed she had raised a genuine factual issue
regarding whether she was terminated for exercising an important public duty
and allowed the employee’s claim to proceed to a jury trial. Love v.
Polk County Fire Dept, 2006 WL 3501338 (Or App 2006).
Employee handbook expressly incorporated into employment contracts.
Two former teachers brought wage claims contending entitlement to unused
sick pay and termination pay. The dispute centered on the employee handbook
that was expressly incorporated into the employment contracts.
The handbook stated employees were eligible for up to 20 sick days per
contract period. It did not define whether the eligibility to the full
period occurred at the start of the year, whether sick days carried over
into the next year or whether it was paid out on termination. A separate
section of the handbook explained that unpaid benefits earned and unused,
including vacation or sick days, would be paid out separate from severance
payment. Though the trial court granted judgment in favor of the employer,
the Court of Appeals reversed, finding more than one plausible
interpretation to the contract and thus a factual dispute to be submitted to
a jury.
This case presents an unusual and unwanted scenario of the employee handbook
becoming in essence a contract. It highlights the clarity needed in drafting
pay and benefit provisions to avoid wage lawsuits that may be long and
expensive. Madson v. Western Oregon Conference Ass'n of Seventh-Day
Adventists, 2006 WL 3501246 (Or App 2006).
<< Newsletter Page