A Wyoming driller had Type II diabetes when an energy company hired him at the end of 2004. He managed his condition with diet and exercise but got worse by the fall of 2006. His boss cut back his workload but wasn’t happy about it, and fired him at the end of the year. He sued.

What happened. “Carson” worked a directional driller for Pathfinder Energy Services during those 2 years. At the start, he generally worked two 10-to-12-day assignments per month, with shifts running 24 hours or more. By autumn 2006, he asked his boss to cut him back to one assignment a month, which the boss did. But in December, the boss ordered Carson to work a second assignment as soon as the first was over.

Carson swore at it but accepted the order. Then he fought with a co-worker on site regarding bunk beds. Allegedly because he had cursed at the boss and fought with the co-worker, Carson was fired. But he later testified that the boss told him at the time that other workers resented his working only one assignment and were threatening to quit unless Carson was fired.

In federal district court, he charged violation of his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district judge heard Pathfinder’s side of the story and ruled entirely in the employer’s favor. Carson appealed to the 10th Circuit, which covers Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming.

What the court said. Carson told appellate judges that by November 2006, he needed help from friends to shower, get dressed, buy groceries, feed his pets, and other daily living tasks. And, in early 2007, new symptoms led to a diagnosis of hepatitis C in addition to the diabetes. He also revealed that he had told his boss not long before he was fired that he would soon apply for disability benefits; he believed the boss didn’t want to pay benefits.

Judges ruled that a judgment for the employer wasn’t appropriate because of unanswered questions: They asked a jury to decide whether Carson was able to perform the essential functions of his job, whether medication could have lessened his symptoms, and whether Pathfinder could reasonably have accommodated him. Carter v. Pathfinder, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, No. 10-8112 (11/3/11).

Point to remember: Judges ruled according to two crucial ADA rulings made by the Supreme Court before the law was amended on January 1, 2009. One involved the use of corrective treatment to make a disability symptom-free, and the other required a disabled person to be unable to perform tasks of daily living. Both were overturned by the amendments, which broadened the criteria for disability.