Third Circuit Court Holds Employer May Have Violated Law against Discrimination in Firing Long-Time Employee

Segundo Rojas worked 28 years for Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc.  In June 2011, Rojas was approved to leave work for a vacation to Ecuador set to last from June 27 to July 12, 2011.  However, he became ill in Ecuador from diverticulitis and did not return until September 12, 2011.

Rojas claimed that he was stricken with a painful bout of diverticulitis in Ecuador.  He did not contact the company because he did not speak English and did not have the appropriate fax number.  Instead, he faxed medical records to his daughter, instructing her to give the documents to his son, Washington, who worked at the ABL facility as well.  Washington was tasked with informing the company.

Washington claimed he spoke with a shop steward and union representative, Calvin Hughes, who assured him that everything was fine.  Rojas contended that this information was relayed to the Plant Manager and Director of Human Resources.  The company denied this.

When Rojas did not return to work following his vacation, the company sent a letter of termination three days later. Rojas argued in his law suit that he was discriminated against on the basis of disability.

The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, the state equivalent of the ADA, has a very broad standard, namely proof of an infirmity caused by an illness that prevents the normal exercise of one’s bodily or mental functions.  Rojas established that he started treating for Diverticulitis in 1996 or 1998 and had continued gastrointestinal problems thereafter.  In fact, in April 2011, just a few months before he left for Ecuador, he had a CT scan of his abdomen and pelvis.  While in Ecuador, Rojas saw local physicians who diagnosed him with Colitis.  His Ecuadorian doctor recommended rest until September 1, 2011. Rojas alleged that he was so sick in Ecuador that he could not do anything without having pain and had to go to the bathroom frequently.

The Third Circuit found that there was sufficient evidence that Rojas suffered from an illness which caused an infirmity that prevented the normal exercise of his bodily functions.  Further, the court was satisfied that Rojas was performing his job duties at an acceptable level prior to his trip to Ecuador.  He worked there 28 years with good job ratings and had no absenteeism issues.

The most hotly disputed issue in this case was whether the company knew Rojas had a disability.  If it did not, the company could not be found to have discriminated based on disability.  Rojas produced testimony that certain company officials knew his condition through his son.  Clearly, plaintiff could show that the shop stewards were aware of his condition and were involved in employment decisions at the company.  Whether the shop stewards became aware before or after termination was not clear.  The Collective Bargaining Agreement directed employees to check with their shop steward about vacation days.  For these reasons, the court held that there was sufficient evidence of notice to avoid summary judgment by the company.

The company argued that Rojas was let go for failing to adhere to ABS’s no-call/no-show policy, and that this was a legitimate reason to terminate Rojas.  It cited the company handbook, but Rojas pointed out that he never received the handbook.

For all the reasons above, the Third Circuit ruled against the company in their motion for summary judgment.  It said that plaintiff produced enough evidence to allow the case to go to trial.  “Beyond the documentation that appears to support this particular instance of illness, there is evidence that  corroborates a history of illness and thus suggests that Plaintiff’s report of diverticulitis in Ecuador was genuine.  If so, the circumstances requiring Plaintiff’s absence were genuinely extenuating.”

This case may be found at Rojas v. Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc., 2014 U. S. Dist. LEXIS 87675 (3d. Cir. 2014).