New Jersey Lawyers Blog“Disability” Defined for Disability Discrimination by Federal Appeals Court Decision
The Federal appeals court which hears New Jersey cases issued a precedential decision explaining the definition of “disability” for purposes of disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. 
Background
Andrew Morgan was employed by Allison Crane & Rigging LLC as a millwright laborer. On September 29, 2020 he injured his lower back on the job. He advised his supervisors, but continued his shift even though he was in “severe pain.” He then saw a chiropractor who diagnosed Morgan with a bulging or herniated disc in his lower back. He began treatment twice a week, and had pain when he sat, walked or turned. The chiropractor placed him on light duty, which he advised his supervisors of in a meeting on October 7, 2020; they advised him not to file a workers compensation claim. The light duty was to continue until November 25th, at which point the chiropractor advised that he could resume his full duties.
However, on November 13, he was out for a medical appointment for his back, and on approximately November 16 he advised that he could not sit in a truck for a long drive to upstate New York. Morgan went to work on November 17. On the next day he was told that he was fired for not reporting for work on the 17th.
Morgan’s Law Suit
Morgan filed suit against Allison Crane in Federal District Court in the case of Andrew Morgan vs. Allison Crane & Rigging LLC. He alleged that he was fired because of his disability, and that Allison Crane failed to accommodate his disability in violation of the Federal Americans with Disability Act. (He also filed Pennsylvania state law claims not relevant here.) However, the District Court judge dismissed Morgan’s lawsuit on summary judgment, finding that his back injury did not constitute a “disability” under the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Morgan appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which hears appeals from the Federal District Courts in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and the United States Virgin Islands.
The Third Circuit Explains the Definition of “Disability” for the Americans with Disabilities Act
The Third Circuit rejected the District Court judge’s analysis and reversed his decision.
The Court explained that the judge had used a definition in effect before the amendments to the ADA contained in the ADA Amendments Act (“ADAAA”) which was passed by Congress in 2008 specifically to reject the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the prior definition and greatly expand coverage under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The test under the ADAAA is whether the condition would “substantially limit” an employee’s ability to “perform a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population.”
The Court rejected judge’s reasoning that because the injury was temporary it was not a covered disability. It also rejected his reasoning that the condition was minor; the Court explained that because the injury limited major life activities such as bending, lifting, walking and sitting, it could not be considered minor – the Court contrasted this with minor transitory conditions like a cold or flu. Given that the judge dismissed the retaliation claims without explanation, apparently because he incorrectly believed the condition could not be a disability, the Third Circuit reversed this portion of the decision as well.
The Court therefore remanded the case to the District Court, and Morgan could proceed to trial.
The Takeaway
Since Third Circuit decisions are binding on the United States District Courts in New Jersey’s decisions, as well as New Jersey State Courts’ interpretation of Federal Law, the Morgan decision will be binding on all cases where employees file suit in New Jersey under the Americans with Disability Act.
New Jersey Courts also often look to Federal Court decisions for guidance in interpreting the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, and thus this opinion will be influential in New Jersey disability discrimination cases as well. The case also comports with New Jersey’s expansive interpretation of the Law Against Discrimination to find coverage for protections against discrimination.
Questions About Disability Discrimination
If you have questions about disability discrimination, please fill out the contact form on this page or call us to schedule a consultation with one of our New Jersey employment attorneys. We can help.