by Jackson Lewis

Saying the ADA only protects "qualified individuals": those who can perform the essential functions of their job with or without reasonable accommodations," a federal appeals court upheld the performance-based termination of a blind employee. Ruling unanimously in the employer's favor, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit reasoned that the ADA's protections do not "shelter disabled individuals from adverse employment actions if the individual, for reasons unrelated to his disability (such as a poor work ethic, carelessness, bad attitude, insubordination or unprofessional demeanor), is not qualified for the job or is unable to perform the job's essential functions or fulfill the requirements of the position as prescribed by the employer or 'fails to meet his employer's expectations'" Hammel v. Eau Galle Cheese Factory (7th Cir.,2005).

Facts of the case
The employee who was sightless in one eye and had "tunnel vision" in the other eye was hired on a trial basis for a general laborer position with the employer, a cheese factory in Wisconsin. From the start of his employment, his supervisors noted performance problems with various stages of the cheese-making process, such as failing to "turn" or "flip" cheese wheels during the molding process and failing to stamp each wheel with a production date. The supervisors also noted that the employee did not keep up with the production line, and the performance problems were resulting in damaged products and waste. In addition to the performance problems, the employee was alleged to have a poor attitude about work and safety, evidenced by a variety of incidents that potentially were dangerous to himself and other workers. He also was alleged to have ignored admonitions to stop making personal phone calls on work time and taking unauthorized cigarette breaks. He was terminated before the end of his probationary period, and was told by the employer's business manager it was because of "his limited vision and the fact that it 'interfered "to some extent" with his work and caused [management] concern for his safety and the safety of his coworkers.'"

Seventh Circuit Decision
Rejecting the employee's contention that evidence of his poor performance and attitude and his careless behavior was irrelevant in determining whether he was a "qualified individual with a disability" under the ADA, the appeals court upheld the termination. The court noted that evidence that the employee repeatedly disregarded safety and operational rules, ignored warnings about work rule violations, and failed to keep up with the factory's workflow for reasons unrelated to his blindness was plainly relevant. The appeals court also agreed with the trial court that the employee was not a "qualified individual" under the ADA, since he did not establish how the employer could have reasonably accommodated him to perform the essential functions of the job.