April 11, 2014
A Catch-22 on Hiring the Disabled
Is it fair to place employers in situations where they face litigation if the employee is not hired, yet still face litigation if the employee IS hired?
In the Missouri Court of Appeals' recent decision in Stewart v. Second Injury Fund, the facts were not in dispute: Ms. Stewart worked at Subway for a few months, suffered a moderately severe injury at work and could not return to any type of employment.
Here’s where the story becomes interesting: The claimant qualified for Social Security disability in 1997 — more than 10 years before she started working at Subway.
Her Social Security disability was awarded based on confirmed medical conditions including arthritis, reflex sympathetic dystrophy, degenerative joint and bone disease and carpal tunnel syndrome. She continued to receive Social Security disability benefits even while she was working at Subway.
After her work injury in 2009, she filed for workers' compensation benefits, claiming that she was permanently and totally disabled.
Was the claimant permanently and totally disabled before her injury at Subway? Apparently not, because she was able to obtain that job and perform the duties associated with that job. In the absence of her injury, she would have presumably been able to continue working.
Why would she be entitled to Social Security disability benefits if she was able to compete in the open labor market? If she was disabled in 1997, should she be entitled to more benefits when she was injured at a job that she should not have been able to obtain?
What if Subway had told the claimant during her initial job interview that she could not be hired because of her multiple disabilities? She could have sued Subway under the Americans with Disabilities Act, arguing that Subway was discriminating against her. Subway, not wanting to be sued, could have been forced to hire the claimant only to face the prospect of being liable for permanent total disability after only a few months of work.
I’m not attempting to disparage the claimant. She obtained benefits that are legally provided. My question is this: Is it fair to place employers in no-win situations where they face litigation if the employee is not hired, yet still face litigation if the employee IS hired?
This situation arises because of the myriad of state and federal laws that regulate every facet of the workplace. Every employer must wade through an alphabet soup of overlapping laws every single day (ADA, FMLA, COBRA, EFCA, EAD, ERISA, FLSA, FCRA, INA and a host of others).
One cannot swing the proverbial dead cat without hitting five politicians giving a speech focused on creating jobs. Yet, can jobs be created by strangling the very companies that create these jobs?