Last week, in Jackson v. Sumter County Georgia, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a grant of summary judgment in favor of Sumter County, Georgia on employee disability discrimination and retaliation claims brought by a former employee. The plaintiff, who had serious medical conditions that qualified as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, was terminated after co-workers complained that she followed them around and repeatedly sprayed Lysol on or near them in the workplace. Rhonda Jackson argued that she used Lysol as a COVID-19 safety precaution because of her health conditions and that terminating her was discriminating against her due to her disability. However, the court found that the county terminated her because of her conduct toward co-workers, not because of her disability.

Sumter County conceded that Jackson’s chronic kidney failure, COPD, and congestive heart failure constituted a disability under the ADA. The issue was not whether Jackson was disabled, but whether she was terminated because of that disability. After co-workers complained about Jackson’s behavior, HR investigated and found the complaints credible. The county administrator concluded Jackson violated the county’s harassment policy and terminated her employment. 

Jackson argued that the county administrator learned of her disability shortly before increasing the discipline from a written reprimand to termination. The court rejected this argument because Jackson’s own testimony showed the administrator knew about her disability months earlier. Jackson also argued that she was treated worse than non-disabled coworkers, but the Eleventh Circuit found no evidence that other employees sprayed Lysol on co-workers. 

The fact that other employees used Lysol did not make them comparable because they did not engage in the same conduct. The court also noted that Jackson’s disability did not insulate her for her behavior and the manner in which she was using the Lysol. The county did not discipline her for using Lysol generally; it disciplined her for spraying it on or near co-workers.  

Key Takeaways for Employers

• The ADA does not prevent employers from disciplining disability-related conduct when the discipline is based on workplace misconduct rather than disability. A plaintiff must show more than proximity or disagreement with discipline to establish discrimination.
   
• A workplace grievance is not automatically protected activity; it must oppose unlawful discrimination or assert rights under the ADA.
   
• Employers are best positioned to defend decisions when they conduct a fair investigation, document the basis for discipline, and distinguish clearly between disability status and misconduct.

For more information, please contact me or your regular Parker Poe contact. Click here to subscribe to our latest alerts and insights.