A financial analyst suffered from asthma and related migraine headaches, which were made worse by exposure to secondhand smoke. Although the employee had been allowed to work from home for a period of time, she was ultimately fired for failing to report back to work at a bank facility after a new smoke-free policy had been implemented. The employee sued the bank for discriminating against her based on her health condition in violation of state and federal law. The court of appeals found that the employee’s claims for reasonable accommodation and unlawful termination failed because she was unable to prove that she was disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Specifically, the court found that the employee did not prove that she was “substantially limited” in her ability to gain work in her field because of her smoke-induced asthma and migraines. However, the court ruled that the employee’s retaliation claim could proceed because she had presented sufficient evidence to raise a question about whether she was terminated based on her attempts to enforce her rights under the ADA.
Defendant
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, in its capacity as receiver for Standard Federal Savings Bank and Standard Federal Savings Association
Some jurisdictions allow an individual or organization to initiate an action against another private party who is not following a particular law. For example, a person may sue a restaurant that allows smoking despite a smoke free law. If the plaintiff is claiming the violation of the law caused physical harm, this may also be a personal injury case.
A claim against an employer involving a person who is harmed by secondhand smoke exposure in the workplace. For example, an employee with asthma may sue their employer for failing to protect them from exposure to secondhand smoke in the office or an employee with cancer may sue for workers’ compensation benefits. This may also include claims for workers' compensation. Disability laws also may protect customers who are not able to patronize a business filled with smoky air because of their disability.
A financial analyst suffered from asthma and related migraine headaches, which were made worse by exposure to secondhand smoke. Although the employee had been allowed to work from home for a period of time, she was ultimately fired for failing to report back to work at a bank facility after a new smoke-free policy had been implemented. The employee sued the bank for discriminating against her based on her health condition in violation of state and federal law. The court of appeals found that the employee’s claims for reasonable accommodation and unlawful termination failed because she was unable to prove that she was disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Specifically, the court found that the employee did not prove that she was “substantially limited” in her ability to gain work in her field because of her smoke-induced asthma and migraines. However, the court ruled that the employee’s retaliation claim could proceed because she had presented sufficient evidence to raise a question about whether she was terminated based on her attempts to enforce her rights under the ADA.