Mr. Edward Wofsy was employed by Palm Shores Retirement Community ("Palm Shores") as a bus driver, responsible for driving Palm Shores retirees to and from doctor appointments and recreational outings. In 2004, after two years of solid job performance, Mr. Wofsy presented his Palm Shores supervisor, Ms. Shelly Streetman, with a note from his doctor explaining he had asthma. The note further instructed Ms. Streetman that Mr. Wofsy might require reasonable accommodations at times to help him with his breathing condition. Ms. Streetman asked Mr. Wofsy to provide specific examples of his functional limitations. For example, Ms. Streetman wondered if Mr. Wofsy's asthma would restrict his ability to move and bend or drive long distances. Additionally, Ms. Streetman wanted to know the extent to which medication could correct Mr. Wofsy's condition. In response, Mr. Wofsy provided a second letter from his doctor stating Mr. Wofsy's asthma was "severe" and suggested that "it is in [Mr. Wofsy's] best interest that he be limited to an area familiar to him."
In August 2005, Palm Shores acquired a new, larger bus for resident transport. Due to the larger size of the bus, all Palm Shores bus drivers were required to obtain a Commercial Drivers License (CDL) and to drive residents longer distances. Mr. Wofsy indicated to Ms. Streetman that he did not intend to obtain a CDL, and would not be available to drive longer distances. Ms. Streetman explained that she would need to hire a CDL driver to operate the new bus and did not know how this would affect Mr. Wofsy's position or hours. Mr. Wofsy offered to work the front desk to retain his full-time hours and benefits.
On August 26, 2005, Ms. Streetman presented Mr. Wofsy with a medical questionnaire for his physician, seeking to clarify his physical limitations and work restrictions. Mr. Wofsy declined to return the questionnaire, stating that he did not think it was necessary and he wanted to do his "old job." On October 1, 2005 Palm Shores moved Mr. Wofsy from a full-time to part-time schedule. Then, on November 18, 2005 Palm Shores again offered Mr. Wofsy a full-time CDL position. He purported to accept the position without indicating he would obtain a CDL, and if "limited to the St. Pete area." On November 21, 2005, Palm Shores notified Mr. Wofsy that due to his noncompliance with Palm Shores' driver requirements, he would be maintained only on an "as-needed" basis. Mr. Wofsy alleged that this notification was a material adverse change in employment resulting from Palm Shores' discriminatory actions, and in violation of ADA Title I.
He claimed he had a ten-year history of asthma commonly triggered by tobacco smoke, air pollution, excitement and emotional stress. He also asserted that medication only reduced the number of asthma attacks he experienced to 15 per week.
Further, Palm Shores argued that his failure to comply with requirements of the driver position, by not obtaining a CDL after agreeing to do so, constituted a legitimate and nondiscriminatory reason for demoting Mr. Wofsy.
The court concluded Mr. Wofsy failed to show he was a qualified individual with a disability and that he was discriminated against on the basis of his asthma. Evidence from Mr. Wofsy's doctor and from the Palm Shores director, demonstrated that Mr. Wofsy's asthma did not prevent him from performing his daily job responsibilities. The court reasoned the evidence established that Mr. Wofsy did not prove his asthma condition constituted a disability that substantially limited a major life activity. The court explained that even had Mr. Wofsy demonstrated he had a "disability" for purposes of the ADA, his claim would fail because he did not prove he was discriminated against. Rather, Palm Shores was justified in their actions because Mr. Wofsy failed to meet the requirements of the job; specifically Mr. Wofsy failed to obtain a CDL and asserted an unwillingness to travel outside a limited area. Thus, the court ruled that the rejection of Mr. Wofsy's demand was not motivated by discriminatory intent.
The court held that Mr. Wofsy failed to demonstrate the change in his employment constituted unlawful retaliation. In order to prove such unlawful activity, Mr. Wofsy had to show that there was a causal link between the statutorily protected action and the adverse employment action. Mr. Wofsy's evidence of causation rested on the close temporal relationship between the date he requested accommodations and the date his employment status changed to part-time. The court held that this was not a sufficient causal link, because Mr. Wofsy was notified that his refusal to accept the new driver position would result in a change to his employment status. Thus, absent other evidence of causation, Mr. Wofsy's claim of retaliation failed.
Even if Mr. Wofsy had established a prima facie case of retaliation, the court explained that his claim would have failed because Palm Springs established a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the change in Mr. Wofsy's employment. Additionally, Mr. Wofsy did not present evidence that would prove the Palm Springs' creation of a new driver position was a pretext for discrimination.
Thus, the court granted Palm Shore's motion for summary judgment, denying all of Mr. Wofsy's claims.
The court has found that asthma and similar episodic conditions that can be treated with readily available medications do not constitute "disabilities" under the ADA. In order for the plaintiff to demonstrate that such a condition substantially limits a major life activity, the plaintiff must prove: 1) that the condition is not episodic in nature and 2) that the condition cannot be treated or controlled with readily available medication. In the instant case, Mr. Wofsy failed to present evidence of either requirement.
One of the three prongs of establishing a case of retaliation under the ADA is a "causal link between the protected expression and the adverse action." The court, in part, relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Clark County School District v. Breeden (2001), where the Court held that mere temporal proximity between a protected activity and an adverse employment action must be "very close" to establish causality. The court in this case admitted the "very close" temporal proximity between Mr. Wofsy's employment status and his request for accommodations. Nonetheless, the court held that there was no causal link because Mr. Wofsy was offered the position and was notified that his refusal would result in the employment action taken.