A custodian at a Tennessee nursing home alleged that when the nursing home that was formerly operated by a government entity went private, the new owner of the nursing home unreasonably imposed a fifty pound lifting requirement that essentially eliminated employment for the custodian who, because of an on-the-job injury, was not allowed to lift more than twenty pounds.
The new owner required all the employees to re-apply for their jobs. In creating the custodian position, a fifty-pound lifting requirement was included as an essential function of the job.
Although the custodian had done well in his work for the previous owner, the lifting restriction now presented a problem. The custodian could not meet the new lifting requirement; so, he sought an accommodation from his employer, but the new owner would not make an exception. They took the position that the fifty-pound lifting restriction was essential, and there was no other position the custodian could fill. He was now out of work.
The custodian sued the new nursing home owner alleging that it engaged in disability discrimination in failing to accommodate him or even interact with him about the lifting restriction. The custodian noted that he could perform his duties effectively, and that he had done so for five years after his injury and before the privatization. Through his suit, the custodian sought back pay, emotional damages and the imposition of punitive damages.
The court’s liability instruction asked if the new owner discriminated against the custodian in violation of the ADA. The jury determined the answer was yes. He was awarded $ 38,206 in back pay plus $ 20,000 more for emotional distress. The jury answered that he was not entitled to punitive damages. The verdict totaled $ 58,206 and a consistent judgment was entered.
