The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has ruled that a plaintiff asserting a disability discrimination claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) must show that her disability was the “but for” cause of her termination. Gentry v. East West Partners Club Mgmt. Co., Inc., No. 14-2382 (4th Cir., March 4, 2016). In upholding a “but for” jury instruction, the Fourth Circuit held that this heightened causation standard applies to claims under the ADA.
Judith Gentry worked at a golf club operated by East West Partners Club Management Company. As an executive housekeeper, Gentry supervised a staff of 8-10 employees and indisputably was an excellent worker. In 2007, Gentry injured her ankle on the job. She returned to work in 2009 despite ongoing pain and difficulty walking. In late 2010, just after settling her workers’ compensation claim, Gentry was laid off during a restructuring designed to reduce costs.
In addition to bringing claims for workers’ compensation retaliation (which she won), Gentry brought a claim under the ADA, arguing that East West fired her based on her disability. She cited an executive’s alleged statement that her ankle rendered her a “liability to the club.” The trial jury found in favor of East West on her ADA claim.
On appeal, Gentry argued that the lower court erred by instructing the jury that, for purposes of her ADA claim, she had to show her disability was the “but-for” cause of her termination. She argued that the less stringent “motivating factor” standard should apply, as it does for discrimination claims under Title VII. The Fourth Circuit disagreed, relying on Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009). In Gross, the U.S. Supreme Court held that for claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), a plaintiff must show that age was the “but for” cause of an employer’s adverse decision. The Fourth Circuit reasoned that similar to the ADEA, Congress did not add “motivating factor” to the ADA, despite adding that language to Title VII. The Court also noted the ADA’s text related to causation– “because of,” “based on,” and “by reason of” – calls for the heightened standard.
Gentry simply did not show that but for her ankle injury, East West would not have ended her employment, particularly given its legitimate business reason to reduce costs. With this decision, the Fourth Circuit joins the Sixth Circuit and Seventh Circuit in applying “but for” causation to ADA claims.