The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has affirmed a summary judgment ruling in favor of a contact center that was sued for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act because it allegedly fired the plaintiff for being anemic, even though she never mentioned having anemia until after she was fired.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Martin v. Teleperformance can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff was hired to be a customer service representative in a contact center, but was fired after working there for four months.
The ADA defines disability three ways — if an individual has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, if an individual has a record of an impairment, and if the individual is regarded as having such an impairment.
The plaintiff failed on all three fronts, the Appeals Court ruled. First, she failed to prove that having anemia limits any major life activity other than noting that she could become impaired when the “weather gets a little too cold.” Second, she never mentioned being anemic when she was hired by the defendant, never told any of her managers, and never requested a disability accommodation. In fact, it was never mentioned until after she was told she was being fired.
In a last grasp, the plaintiff asked to have a separate privacy claim considered in her case, which the Appeals Court denied, because the plaintiff never mentioned any privacy issues during her initial case at the District Court level.
