A Tennessee auto assembler injured his elbow on the job in April 2003. He had surgery in September 2004. He was back on the job by 2006, but in mid-year, his workers’ compensation claim against his employer reached chancery court. A judge there may or may not have gone beyond what he’d been asked to do, but his ruling caused trouble.
For a Limited Time receive a
FREE HR Report "Top 10 Best Practices in HR Management." This comprehensive special report will give you the information you need to know about these current HR challenges and how to most effectively manage them in your workplace.
Download NowWhat happened. Jones joined Nissan at its Smyrna plant in 1997, where he worked first on a metal line and later as a hood installer. He returned to work after his surgery, this time on a less strenuous job in the body shop’s trim area. He performed his job to his boss’s satisfaction, with light use of hand tools and only light lifting. In early 2006 he complained to his doctor of pain in the area of his injury, but he was released to return to work with no restrictions. But in June of that year, his workers’ comp claim against Nissan got to chancery court. The chancellor recounted in his decision that Jones complained of continuing pain, exhaustion after work, and lack of grip strength. And, contrary to Jones’s doctor’s estimate that he’d lost 3 percent of his strength and mobility as a result of the injury, the chancellor ruled that, for workers’ comp purposes, he’d lost 30 percent of his work capacity.
Once he received the chancellor’s rulings, Nissan’s lawyer immediately imposed work restrictions on Jones, severe enough that Nissan refused to allow him to keep his job. He was put on unpaid medical leave. Ultimately, Jones took another job, violating Nissan’s rule against moonlighting. He was fired, and he sued for violation of his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A district court judge ruled for Nissan, and Jones appealed to the 6th Circuit, which covers Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan, and Tennessee.
What the court said. Appellate judges disagreed with the lower court judge. Nissan’s lawyer was mistaken, they said, to adopt the workers’ compensation chancellor’s evaluation of Jones’s limitations. The key under ADA was that Nissan completely failed to conduct its own investigation of Jones’s ability or disability—a requirement of the law. So appellate judges sent Jones’s case back to the district court for reconsideration of his claim. Jones v. Nissan North America, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, No. 09-5786 (2011).
Point to remember: Court proceedings for workers’ compensations claims are conducted for quite different purposes than those for violation of ADA. As judges wrote here, “Were employers permitted to infer an inability to do the job based on workers’ compensation findings of fact, the purposes of the ADA would be undermined.”