A recent case from the Texas Supreme Court circumscribed the definition of “disability” in the Texas Labor Code Section 21.002(6).
Argument
Sheri Kowalski worked as the director of finance at a hospital in Dallas. She was terminated in a reduction in force (RIF) but claimed the true reason for her termination was her disability.
Kowalski asserted she suffered from “severe” neck pain, “causing her difficulty when driving, typing at a computer for long periods of time, turning her head or turning around, sleeping, and focusing and concentrating.”
Supreme Court’s Response
The court was direct—“mere difficulty” with everyday tasks is a far cry from what Section 21.002(6) requires, which is evidence of a significant limitation of a major life activity. (Lawyers love using the word “mere” as a modifier in advocating their position.)
Here is the court expounding:
Kowalski does not allege now, and no evidence from her time at [the hospital] indicates, that she was actually unable to complete (that is, that she was in any way limited as to) any of the tasks or activities that she describes.
There’s more! The court said there was no evidence that the hospital was aware of the alleged severity of Kowalski’s condition before letting her go.
From the Top Rope
Moreover, the court gave a judicial smackdown to the Dallas appeals court for siding with Kowalski. According to the Dallas court, there was a disability under Section 21.002(6) because there was evidence that she needed a job accommodation so she could work more “comfortably.” The smackdown from the High Court:
We disagree [with the Dallas appeals court]. The crucial point is whether Kowalski suffered an impairment that substantially limited at least one major life activity; no fact issue arises as to that point on account of the potential for her to be more comfortable at work. Allowing claims of mild discomfort to qualify as disabilities would substantially lower [an employee’s] burden below the Labor Code’s requirements. Everyone could claim a disability if that were true because everyone can be made more comfortable.
Ouch! Dallas County Hospital System v. Kowalski (Tex., Dec. 31, 2024).
Bottom Line
Hold employees to their burden of proof—here, that they have a disability as that word is defined in the Texas Labor Code. Give careful consideration to whether you can turn the litigation tide at this key threshold issue.
Michael P. Maslanka is a professor at the UNT-Dallas College of Law. You can reach him at michael.maslanka@untdallas.edu.
The post Texas Supreme Court Limits Disability Definition appeared first on HR Daily Advisor.