Miami Employment Lawyer Blog

Employees who are injured on the job and placed on lifting or other restrictions may find relief in the 2008 Amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "Amendments to the ADA"), which became law on January 1, 2009. Under the Amendments to the ADA, a person with a 20-pound lifting restriction that is not of short-term duration may qualify as a person with a "disability" under the law, to which the employer must provide a reasonable accommodation. Thus, if an employee who was injured on the job and has reached the maximum medical improvement, but still has medical restrictions, he should request a reasonable accommodation from his employer so that he or she can continue working with his or her disability.

One of the most important ramifications of the Amendments to the ADA is in the definition of what constitutes a "disability" under the law. Specifically, the Amendments to the ADA specifically overruled the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184, 122 S.Ct. 681, 151 L.Ed.2d 615 (2002), where the Court held in order to show that a plaintiff has a disability, he or she must show that his or her impairment substantially limits one or more major life activities that are of "central importance to most people's daily lives." In that case, the employee worked on the assembly line of an automobile manufacturing plant, where she developed several work-related ailments, including bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and bilateral tendinitis due to the manual work that she performed. She filed a claim under the Kentucky Workers' Compensation statute and was treated, but was placed on lifting and other restrictions. The employee was eventually fired and it was unclear whether it was because she missed work due to her injuries and/or refused to work in the rotation required by the employer. The U.S. Supreme Court found that she did have a "disability" under the ADA because she did not show that her impairments substantially limited one or more major life activities that are of "central importance to most people's daily lives."

Based on this decision, courts have routinely held that an employee's inability to consistently lift heavy weights due to a work-related injury was not a disability under the ADA. However, the Amendments to the ADA change all that and specifically provide that an individual need not demonstrate a limitation in the ability to perform activities of central importance to daily life. Now, someone with a medical restriction that is not of short-term duration is a person with a "disability" under the law and the employer must provide a reasonable accommodation so that he or she can continue working.

Continue reading "Amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act have Significant Ramifications to Employees Claiming Workers' Compensation Injuries and Medical Restrictions" »

I am very happy to report that we prevailed last week on an unemployment compensation appeal for a client that was denied unemployment benefits because of a violation of company policy. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal, which sits in Miami, Florida, decided that a violation of company policy, which also was a violation of federal regulations, was not sufficient to deny a fourteen-year employee unemployment compensation benefits. Attached to this link is the full Opinion of the Court in Hernandez v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, Docket No. 3D09-3326 (Fla. 3d DCA July 2010).

In that case, Ms. Hernandez, the employee, worked as a customer account specialist for American General Finance, one of the largest loan companies in the country. Sometime prior to her discharge, she processed a loan for a customer. When the customer took out the loan, he was with a third party and according to the evidence, the customer and the third party were very close friends. Subsequently, the third party came in and requested an increase in the amount of loan, which Ms. Hernandez duly processed. However, she failed to obtain the approval of the customer or the customer's signature on any of the loan increase papers. The customer found out about it and when he complained, that's when Ms. Hernandez was fired. The company claimed that it was a violation of company policy and a violation of federal regulations. However, Ms. Hernandez had never been given a reprimand or warning for this or any other type of conduct during her entire 14-year tenure with the company. Nevertheless, the Appeals Referee determined that this was misconduct as defined in the unemployment law and denied unemployment compensation benefits. The Unemployment Appeals Commission affirmed.

At oral argument before a panel of three judges of the Third District Court of Appeal, we argued that this was an isolated incident of a lapse of judgment that should not rise to the level of being "misconduct" as defined by the unemployment law. The Unemployment Appeals Commission ("UAC") argued that the conduct was so egregious that it was tantamount to a willful and wanton disregard of the employer's interests. The UAC cited several opinions for this proposition, such as the case of Sears & Roebuck v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 463 So.2 465, (Fla. 2d 1985), where an employee was denied unemployment benefits because of a clear violation of company policy, which also included a violation of law. However, I argued to the judges that the cases cited by the UAC involved situations where the employee garnered a benefit from the conduct. In the case before the Court, the employee received no benefit whatsoever. As such, it was a simple error in judgment. The Court agreed and found that one incident of poor judgment exercised by Ms. Hernandez over a fourteen-year career with the employer, does not rise to the level of being misconduct as defined by the unemployment law.

Continue reading "Florida District Court of Appeal Holds That Violation of Company Policy Not Sufficient to Deny Unemployment Compensation Benefits" »