Many employers struggle with the question of how to handle the termination of employment of an employee who suffers from an on-going mental disability. This was the dilemma discussed in a case successfully argued by Hinckley, Allen & Snyder LLP in front of the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, Poulin v. Custom Craft, Inc., 996 A.2d 654 (R.I. 2010). The employer was not held liable for disability discrimination and was found to have legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating the employment of an employee who suffered from anxiety and depression days after receiving a doctor’s note stating that the employee would need two weeks off from work.
EMPLOYEE SUFFERED FROM ANXIETY AND DEPRESSION
The plaintiff, Philip Poulin, was the second in charge at Custom Craft, Inc. He suffered from anxiety and depression. In 2002, he requested and received two two-week leaves of absence when his anxiety and depression impacted his ability to work. Thereafter, the plaintiff continued to attend regular therapy appointments during working hours and was granted leave to do so.
EMPLOYEE EXHIBITED PERFORMANCE ISSUES AND HIS EMPLOYMENT WAS TERMINATED
Between 2002 and 2004, the plaintiff received verbal counseling on various job performance issues. Defendant presented evidence that plaintiff’s job performance deteriorated, he was insubordinate, and he engaged in verbal altercations with co-workers.
On July 27, 2004, the defendant received a faxed doctor’s note from the plaintiff’s internist stating that the plaintiff would not be able to work for a period of two weeks, but it provided no reason necessitating the absence. The defendant presented evidence that the plaintiff made no effort, other than the fax, to contact the defendant to discuss how they were going to cover for him at what was its busiest time of year. A short time after receiving the faxed note, the president of Custom Craft, Inc., Gerard Auclair, ran into plaintiff at a comedy show on a Friday night. He asked plaintiff to report to work the next day, where his employment was terminated.
NO NEXUS TO ANXIETY OR DEPRESSION
The employer defended its decision on the basis of the plaintiff’s poor job performance and not on his anxiety or depression. The court agreed and found “[t]he evidence presented does not suggest that plaintiff was terminated because of his anxiety and depression. Rather, the evidence suggests that Mr. Auclair terminated plaintiff because of plaintiff’s failure either to explain his two-week absence from work in July 2004 or to attempt to mitigate the hardship it created for defendants, coupled with his presence at a Friday night comedy show during that period.”
LESSON FOR EMPLOYERS
Employers should not be afraid to take adverse employment action (such as discipline, suspension, or termination of employment) against an employee who is in a protected category if that adverse employment action is based on legitimate concerns with an employee’s job performance. Concerns with an employee’s performance should be documented so that if an employee sues and alleges that adverse employment action was based on impermissible discrimination, the employer can more easily defend its legitimate, non-discriminatory decision.