FIRST VERDICT UNDER ADA
FIRE SERVICE COURT
A federal jury in Chicago on March 18 awarded S572,000 to the former director of a security firm who was terminated from his job after being diagnosed with terminal brain cancer. This is the first verdict in the United States to result from a lawsuit brought against a private employer by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Under the facts of this case, Charles Wessel, a 59-year-old former executive director, was fired by his employer on July 29, 1992, after the employer, AIC Security Investigations, Inc., and AIC Security International, Ltd., learned he had terminal brain cancer. The dismissal came July 28th, 1992, four days after the ADA’s effective date for employers with 25 or more employees. The EEOC, on behalf of Wessel, filed suit against AIC Security, Inc., AIC International, Ltd., and the companies’ owner in November 1992, after unsuccessful attempts at conciliation.
During the nine-day trial, the EEOC argued that Wessel’s termination was a violation of Title I of the ADA, which prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities who are able to perform the essential functions of a position, with or without accommodations. In addition, the EEOC argued that Wessel’s termination was based, in part, on the employer’s need to make reasonable accommodations for Wessel’s possible future physical impairments and because of stereotypical fears about disability. Evidence was submitted reflecting the fact that Wessel performed his job up to the time he was discharged. The security companies argued that the companies “bent over backwards to assist Wessel, who first developed lung cancer one year after joining AIC (Security Investigations, Inc.) in 1986, and only fired him because he could no longer do the job.”
After deliberating for approximately one-and-a-half hours, the sevenperson jury returned a verdict for Wessel, ordering the owner of AIC Security Investigations, Inc., and AIC International, Ltd., to pay S500,000 in punitive damages (nearly double the top amount permitted under the ADA and the Civil Rights Act of 1991) — S250,000 against the owner and $250,000 against the companies—in addition to S 50,000 in compensatory damages and $22,000 in back pay. Under the $200,000 cap imposed under the ADA, the court reduced the award to $222,000. The security companies are expected to appeal this verdict.
According to EEOC General Counsel Donald Livingston, this verdict should send a message to employers regarding their obligations under the new ADA law: “The EEOC’s primary goal is to educate businesses regarding their responsibilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act. This verdict should distinctly accomplish that goal.”
Prudent fire service organizations may want to review and evaluate their hiring, screening, testing, and disciplinary procedures, in addition to the other requirements mandated under the Act, in light of this decision. Prudent fire service organizations also may want to review and evaluate all titles and provisions of the ADA, such as those regarding the availability of auxiliary testing and training aids and the use of TDD telephones in 91 1 telecommunications systems, that apply to the fire service to ensure compliance with the broad requirement of the ADA. This landmark case is only the first of many cases under the new ADA law. The time and effort you spend now to achieve and maintain ADA compliance can pay dividends byhelping to avoid this type of verdict in your future.
