SSDI Documents may Shed Light on Worker's Ability to do Job's Essential Functions

New York, NY (WorkersCompensation.com) – When responding to a failure to accommodate claim, an employer may want to see whether a worker’s Social Security disability application matches up with her claim that she’s capable of performing her job. 

The managed care enrollment program in Deangelo v. Maximus/NY Medicaid Choice, No. 19-CV-7957 (CS) (S.D.N.Y. 08/02/22), nearly side-stepped an ADA claim filed by a field service customer representative whose arm injury appeared to close the book on her future typing activities. 

The full-time employee said she injured her right elbow when a worker opened a steel bathroom door on her arm. She sought accommodations but reportedly failed to identify one that would work for her. 

In her application for SSDI benefits, the employee wrote: “I did a lot of typing for my job. I cannot type without doing myself harm. I am in constant pain.” 

The ALJ in the SSDI case found the employee had a disability and was entitled to benefits. The ALJ wrote, in part: "She indicated that [her] pain prevented her from handling and holding items such as a coffee cup, typing, or handling small objects … with her right dominant hand.” 

The employee later sued her employer for ADA discrimination, after it terminated her. But the employer pointed to the SSDI application as evidence that the worker wasn’t capable of performing her job, even with accommodations. 

The court explained that to establish discrimination based on disability, a worker must show: 1) she has a disability; 2) she was otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of her job, with or without reasonable accommodation; and 3) she suffered an adverse employment action because of the disability." 

Critically, the court remarked, the employee’s position required typing. Further, her SSDI application, submitted five days before her termination, claimed she had been disabled for over a year, and was unable to type. “Plaintiff clearly stated that she cannot type without pain and harm, thereby claiming disability on the basis that she could not perform an essential function of the [field service customer] position,” the court wrote. 

But that wasn’t the end of the story—not yet. The court explained that when an ADA accommodation claim conflicts with a sworn statement of total disability within an SSDI application, a court should require the worker to explain the apparent conflict. Further, that explanation must be sufficient to convince a reasonable juror that she could nonetheless perform the job’s essential functions, with or without reasonable accommodation. 

Here, the court noted, the employee explained that she could have performed the essential functions of her job with an ergonomic workstation and voice recognition software, but that the employer had not yet offered it. The latter contention was questionable, the court indicated. However, it found the employee’s explanation “barely” adequate to enable the case to continue.  

The court denied the employer summary judgment, reasoning that a fact issue remained concerning whether the worker was able to perform the essential functions of her job with a reasonable accommodation. 

Forms, email updates, legal, regulatory, and compliance information from New York and 52 other jurisdictions across the U.S. can be found on WorkCompResearch.com.