A Pennsylvania newspaper soundly defeated a partially deaf former employee’s claims of gender and disability discrimination in federal court. Mengel v. Reading Eagle Co., No. 11-6151, (E.D. Pa. Mar. 28, 2013)
Christine Mengel had worked at Reading Eagle Company since 1999 as a copy editor and page designer, receiving satisfactory performance evaluations between 2001 and 2008. In 2007, Mengel became completely deaf in her left ear and developed balance problems following the removal of a brain tumor, but continued to work without accommodations. Mengel’s supervisors were aware of her hearing and balance problems.
In September 2008, during a meeting with Mengel and her supervisors, another co-worker openly complained about Mengel and called her a “tar baby.” Mengel later complained about the “tar baby” comment on an undated annual self-evaluation. Early in 2009, Reading Eagle rated its employees under a seven–category matrix, with the intention of performing a reduction in force layoff. A few months later, Reading Eagle terminated Mengel, who had received the lowest score in her department, along with two other male employees who, after Mengel, had also scored the lowest.
The Court did not find that Mengel’s partial deafness constituted a disability substantially limiting her hearing under the ADAAA. Mengel testified that her deafness in her left ear was not a distraction and, other than not being able to hear some things, she did not mention specific instances where her hearing loss was problematic. Although Mengel presented evidence supporting that she might have been “regarded as” disabled by Reading Eagle, the Court did not find a causal link between Reading Eagle learning of her alleged disabilities around 2007 and her subsequent termination in 2009.
Mengel’s retaliation claim was based upon her complaint about her co-worker’s “tar baby” comment, which Mengel characterized as bullying, rather than based upon racial or gender-related animus. The Court concluded that it was unreasonable for Mengel to believe that the co-worker’s statement was unlawful, as the comment was single and isolated, and her complaints were not made with a good faith belief that the term was said unlawfully.
While the decision is significant in holding that partial deafness does not constitute a disability under the ADAAA, this case also serves as a useful reminder to employers that performance evaluations can be weighty evidence in litigation.