Applying for Social Security Disability Benefits May Cause Dismissal of Employee's Disability Discrimination Claim
What happens when an employee, who claims to be disabled and protected from discrimination under laws such as the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) or similar state or local human rights laws (such as the New York City Human Rights Law), files an application for disability benefits with the Social Security Administration? According to a recent decision from the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, D'Avilar v. Cerebral Palsy Associations of New York State, 2009 NY Slip Op 04851, the very fact that the employee filed such an application for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits creates an inherent inconsistency and deficiency in her ability to ever prevail on her disability discrimination claim.
That is, since receipt of SSDI benefits is contingent on the applicant being rendered disabled and unable to work, the application for benefits becomes a binding admission by the employee that she cannot perform the "essential functions" of the job. To be protected under the ADA and similar state or local laws, the employee must be a qualified individual with a disability -- defined as someone who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of such position. Under federal regulations, essential functions means the fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds or desires. Clearly, affirming on your SSDI application that you are disabled and unable to work tacitly admits that you cannot perform the job's essential functions; consequently, perhaps ironically, you may then lose the ability to prevail on a claim under the ADA or local laws such as the NYC Human Rights Law. In D'Avilar, this is exactly what happened: the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's entry of judgment for the employer as it "established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based on the plaintiff's application for SSDI benefits, in which the plaintiff averred that she could not perform the job. . . ."
The Appellate Division's recent decision is consistent with a decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, DiSanto v. McGraw Hill, 220 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 2000). In DiSanto, the Second Circuit dismissed the ADA claim of a salesperson who alleged that his employment was unlawfully terminated because he was HIV-positive status and suffered from depression. The court found that the plaintiff had not presented any evidence that he could perform the essential functions of his job at the time of his discharge. The court pointed to the plaintiff's trial testimony that he could not fulfill the duties of his job without accommodation. In addition, the plaintiff had represented to the Social Security Administration that "he was completely disabled before his discharge." The Second Circuit stated that, while such statements do not always preclude a disabled individual from bringing an ADA action and claiming that he can perform the essential functions of his position, the plaintiff "must offer some explanation for the inconsistency." The plaintiff in DiSanto failed to provide such an explanation. Accordingly, his ADA claim was dismissed for failure to prove that he could perform the essential functions of his position.
For employers facing an ever-growing number of disability related charges, it should therefore be a useful and potentially dispositive tool to determine whether SSDI benefits have been sought by the purportedly aggrieved employee.
That is, since receipt of SSDI benefits is contingent on the applicant being rendered disabled and unable to work, the application for benefits becomes a binding admission by the employee that she cannot perform the "essential functions" of the job. To be protected under the ADA and similar state or local laws, the employee must be a qualified individual with a disability -- defined as someone who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of such position. Under federal regulations, essential functions means the fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds or desires. Clearly, affirming on your SSDI application that you are disabled and unable to work tacitly admits that you cannot perform the job's essential functions; consequently, perhaps ironically, you may then lose the ability to prevail on a claim under the ADA or local laws such as the NYC Human Rights Law. In D'Avilar, this is exactly what happened: the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's entry of judgment for the employer as it "established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based on the plaintiff's application for SSDI benefits, in which the plaintiff averred that she could not perform the job. . . ."
The Appellate Division's recent decision is consistent with a decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, DiSanto v. McGraw Hill, 220 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 2000). In DiSanto, the Second Circuit dismissed the ADA claim of a salesperson who alleged that his employment was unlawfully terminated because he was HIV-positive status and suffered from depression. The court found that the plaintiff had not presented any evidence that he could perform the essential functions of his job at the time of his discharge. The court pointed to the plaintiff's trial testimony that he could not fulfill the duties of his job without accommodation. In addition, the plaintiff had represented to the Social Security Administration that "he was completely disabled before his discharge." The Second Circuit stated that, while such statements do not always preclude a disabled individual from bringing an ADA action and claiming that he can perform the essential functions of his position, the plaintiff "must offer some explanation for the inconsistency." The plaintiff in DiSanto failed to provide such an explanation. Accordingly, his ADA claim was dismissed for failure to prove that he could perform the essential functions of his position.
For employers facing an ever-growing number of disability related charges, it should therefore be a useful and potentially dispositive tool to determine whether SSDI benefits have been sought by the purportedly aggrieved employee.
