Labor & Employment Law

10th Circuit Issues Important Association Discrimination Decision Under the ADA

10^th Circuit Issues Important Association Discrimination Decision Under the ADA

Source: Adjunct Law Prof Blog; http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/adjunctprofs/

Reproduced with permission. Copyright © 2008, Mitchell H. Rubinstein, Esq., Adjunct Professor of Law, St. Johns Law School and New York Law School, All rights reserved.

In Trujillo v. PaciCorp., ___F.3d___(10th Cir. May 7, 2008), the Tenth Circuit held that a couple with disabled son (brain tumor) stated a cause of action with evidence that their termination was due to son?s medical expenses. This is a lengthy decision. The court describe association discrimination claims as follows:

Disability discrimination includes ?excluding or otherwise denying equal jobs or benefits to a qualified individual because of the known disability of an individual with whom the qualified individual is known to have a relationship or association.? Id. at § 12112(b)(4). This prohibition is known as the ?association provision? of the ADA. See Den Hartog v. Wasatch Acad., 129 F.3d 1076, 1082 (10th Cir. 1997). ?A family relationship is the paradigmatic example of a ?relationship? under the association provision of the ADA.? Id. (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.8). The Trujillos? relationship to their son is protected by the association provision.

The Tenth also held that plaintiffs stated a cause of action under ERISA Section 510, which it described as follows:

The Trujillos also contend PacifiCorp terminated them in violation of ERISA. Section 510 of ERISA makes it illegal for an employer to terminate any person ?for the purpose of interfering with the attainment of any right to which such [person] may become entitled to under [an employee benefit plan].? 29 U.S.C. § 1140. To make a prima facie case of interference with ERISA benefits, the Trujillos must establish ?by a preponderance of the evidence [] that [their] discharge was motivated by an intent to interfere with employee benefits protected by ERISA.? Phelps v. Field Real Estate Co., 991 F.2d 645, 649 (10th Cir. 1993).

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on June 03, 2008 (boomark / email).