What happened. “Daniel” worked as a team leader for the State of South Dakota’s Bureau of Information and Telecommunications (BIT). Daniel had diabetes and used insulin to maintain a proper blood sugar level. His supervisor was aware of his condition.

In an October 29, 2004, letter from his supervisor, Daniel learned that he would be removed from his current job and reassigned to a position as a computer support analyst. The letter explained that this “lateral transfer” would not affect his pay grade or salary, and that the decision to transfer him to another job was based on his ongoing “difficulty getting along with others” and continued “complaints about [his] ability to be a team player.”

Daniel was not satisfied in his new role with BIT, and he demanded that he be reinstated to his job as team leader, maintaining that it provided him with the consistency and low stress level that he said he needed to control his diabetes.

When his request was refused, Daniel filed suit against three supervisors and BIT’s Human Resources officer in their official and individual capacities, as well as the state of South Dakota and its attorney general. He claimed that they had discriminated against him because of his diabetes, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A district court ruled against Daniel, saying he had not proven that he was discriminated against on the basis of a disability. Daniel appealed to the 8th Circuit, which covers North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, and Arkansas.

What the court said. The appeals court affirmed the district court decision. Even if Daniel was able to show that he was disabled within the meaning of the ADA, that he was qualified to perform the essential functions of the job (with or without a reasonable accommodation), and that he suffered an adverse employment action, the court said he did not prove “that he suffered an adverse employment action because of his disability.”

Putting that point aside, however, Daniel still would not have prevailed, because he did not show that BIT’s reason for reassigning him (i.e., his refusal to follow orders and inability to work with others) was pretextual (i.e., the reason was used in an attempt to cover up the employer’s discrimination)., according to the appeals court. Lors v. Dean, et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, No. 09-1382 (2010)

Point to remember. Training on disability discrimination should include an overview of the ADA and an employer’s responsibilities under it, including making reasonable accommodations when necessary. Supervisors and managers also should be trained to document performance problems—as was done by the employer in this case—and make unbiased personnel decisions.