1.5.1 Americans With Disabilities Act
(Disparate Treatment Claim)
42 USC §§ 12101-12117
In this case the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant discriminated against
the Plaintiff by [refusing to hire the Plaintiff] [terminating the Plaintiff's
employment] [failing to promote the Plaintiff] because the Plaintiff had a
"disability" within the meaning of a federal law known as the Americans
with Disabilities Act (the ADA). The Defendant denies that it
discriminated against the Plaintiff in any way and asserts that [describe
the Defendant’s theory of defense]. Under the ADA, it is unlawful for an
employer to [refuse to employ] [discharge or lay off] [fail to promote] or
otherwise discriminate against an employee because of that employee's
disability if the employee is qualified to do the job. In order to prevail on
this claim the Plaintiff must prove each of the following facts by a
preponderance of the evidence:
First: That the Plaintiff had a "disability," as hereafter defined;
Second: That the Plaintiff was a "qualified individual," as hereafter
defined;
Third: That the Plaintiff was [refused employment] [discharged from
employment] [not promoted] by the Defendant; and
Fourth: That the Plaintiff's disability was a substantial or motivating
factor that prompted the Defendant to take that action. [In the verdict
form that I will explain in a moment, you will be asked to answer a series
of questions concerning each of these factual issues.] Definition of
“Disability” The first fact that the Plaintiff must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence is that [he] [she] had a “disability.” An
individual with a "disability" is a person who has a physical or mental
impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities [or a
person who is "regarded" as having such an impairment] [or a person
who has a record of having such an impairment.]. A "major life activity"
is an activity that an average person can perform with little or no
difficulty. Examples are caring for oneself, performing manual tasks,
walking, talking, seeing, hearing, breathing, learning, and working. An
impairment substantially limits one or more major life activities if an
individual is unable to perform an activity, or is significantly limited in the
ability to perform an activity, compared to an average person in the
general population. Three factors you should consider in determining
whether the Plaintiff’s alleged impairment substantially limits a major life
activity are (1) its nature and severity; (2) how long it will last or is
expected to last; and (3) its permanent or long term impact, or expected
impact. Temporary injuries and impairments of limited duration are not
considered to be disabilities under the ADA. ["To be regarded" as
having such an impairment means a person who: (1) has a physical or
mental impairment that does not substantially limit major life activities
but is treated by an employer as having such a limitation; (2) has a
physical or mental impairment that substantially limits major life
activities only as a result of the attitudes of others toward such
impairment; or (3) does not have an impairment but is treated by an
employer as having a substantially limiting impairment.] [Plaintiff has
alleged that [his] [her] impairment substantially limited Plaintiff’s ability to
work. Working is a major life activity; however, an inability to perform a
single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the
major life activity of working. Indeed, an individual is substantially limited
in the major life activity of working only if [he] [she] is significantly
restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range
of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having
comparable training, skills, and abilities. In deciding whether the
Plaintiff’s impairment substantially limited [his] [her] ability to work, you
should consider the three factors already mentioned relating to the
severity, duration and lasting effect of the impairment. In addition, you
may also consider: (1) the geographical area to which the individual has
reasonable access; (2) the number and types of jobs, if any, utilizing
similar training, knowledge, skill or abilities, within that geographical
area, from which the individual is also disqualified because of the
impairment; and (3) the number and types of jobs, if any, not utilizing
similar training, knowledge, skills or abilities, within that geographical
area from which the individual is also disqualified because of the
impairment.] Definition of “Qualified” The second fact that the Plaintiff
must prove by a preponderance of the evidence is that [he] [she] was
“qualified” for the job in question at the time of the challenged
employment decision notwithstanding [his] [her] disability. The ADA
does not require an employer to hire or retain or promote an individual
who cannot perform the job. In order to prove that [he] [she] was
qualified, the Plaintiff must establish: (1) that the Plaintiff possessed the
requisite skill, experience, education and other job-related requirements
of the job in question; and (2) that the Plaintiff was capable of
performing all of the essential functions of the job in question, despite
any disability, with or without reasonable accommodation by Plaintiff’s
employer. To the extent that the Plaintiff contends that a particular
function is not essential to the job, the Plaintiff also bears the burden of
proving that this function is not, in fact, essential. The essential
functions of a position are the fundamental job duties of that position.
The term “essential functions” does not include the marginal functions of
the position. A job duty or function may be considered essential
because, among other things, one of the reasons the job exists is to
perform that function; or because there are a limited number of
employees available among whom the performance of that job function
can be distributed; or because the function is highly specialized and the
incumbent in the position was hired for his or her expertise or ability to
perform that particular function. Evidence of whether a particular
function is essential includes, but is not limited to, the employer’s own
judgment as to which functions are essential; the existence of written
job descriptions prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants
for the job; the amount of time spent on the job performing the function;
the consequences of not requiring the incumbent to perform the
function; the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, if applicable;
the work experience of past incumbents in the job; and/or the current
work experience of incumbents in similar jobs. [Further, in addition to
the particular requirements of a specific job, an employer may have
general requirements for an employee in any position. For example, the
employer may expect employees to refrain from abusive or threatening
conduct toward co-workers or the public, or may require a regular and
reliable level of attendance by the employee.]. Definition of “Substantial
Or Motivating Factor” Finally, the Plaintiff must prove that the Plaintiff’s
disability was a substantial or motivating factor that prompted the
Defendant to take the challenged employment action. It is not necessary
for the Plaintiff to prove that disability was the sole or exclusive reason
for the Defendant's decision. It is sufficient if the Plaintiff proves that the
alleged disability was a determining factor that made a difference in the
employer’s decision. You should be mindful, however, that the law
applicable to this case requires only that an employer not discriminate
against an employee because of the employee's disability. So far as you
are concerned in this case, an employer may [discharge] [refuse to hire]
[fail to promote] or otherwise adversely affect an employee for any other
reason, good or bad, fair or unfair, and you must not second guess that
decision or permit any sympathy for the employee to lead you to
substitute your own judgment for that of the Defendant even though you
personally may not approve of the action taken and would have acted
differently under the circumstances. If you find in favor of the Plaintiff
and against the Defendant, you must then decide the issue of the
Plaintiff’s damages. In considering the issue of the Plaintiff's damages,
you are instructed that you should assess the amount you find to be
justified by a preponderance of the evidence as full, just and reasonable
compensation for all of the Plaintiff's damages, no more and no less.
Compensatory damages are not allowed as a punishment and must not
be imposed or increased to penalize the Defendant. Also, compensatory
damages must not be based on speculation or guesswork because it is
only actual damages that are recoverable. On the other hand,
compensatory damages are not restricted to actual loss of time or
money; they cover both the mental and physical aspects of injury - -
tangible and intangible. Thus, no evidence of the value of such
intangible things as emotional pain and mental anguish has been or
need be introduced. In that respect it is not value you are trying to
determine, but an amount that will fairly compensate the Plaintiff for
those claims of damage. There is no exact standard to be applied; any
such award should be fair and just in the light of the evidence. You
should consider the following elements of damage, to the extent you
find them proved by a preponderance of the evidence, and no others:
(a) Net lost wages and benefits to the date of trial;
(b) Emotional pain and mental anguish.
[(c) Punitive damages, if any (as explained in the Court’s instructions)]
[You are instructed that any person who claims damages as a result of
an alleged wrongful act on the part of another has a duty under the law
to "mitigate" those damages - - that is, to take advantage of any
reasonable opportunity that may have existed under the circumstances
to reduce or minimize the loss or damage. So, if you should find from a
preponderance of the evidence that the Plaintiff failed to seek out or
take advantage of a business or employment opportunity that was
reasonably available under all the circumstances shown by the
evidence, then you should reduce the amount of the Plaintiff's damages
by the amount that could have been reasonably realized if the Plaintiff
had taken advantage of such opportunity.]
[The Plaintiff also claims that the acts of the Defendant were done with
malice or reckless indifference to the Plaintiff's federally protected rights
so as to entitle the Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages in addition
to compensatory damages. In some cases punitive damages may be
awarded for the purpose of punishing the Defendant for its wrongful
conduct and to deter others from engaging in similar wrongful conduct.
However, an employer may not be held liable for punitive damages
because of discriminatory acts on the part of its managerial employees
where those acts by such employees are contrary to the employer’s
own good faith efforts to comply with the law by implementing policies
and programs designed to prevent such unlawful discrimination in the
workplace. So, an award of punitive damages would be appropriate only
if you find for the Plaintiff and then further find from a preponderance of
the evidence (1) that a higher management official of the Defendant
personally acted with malice or reckless indifference to the Plaintiff’s
federally protected rights, and (2) that the employer itself had not acted
in a good faith attempt to comply with the law by adopting policies and
procedures designed to prohibit such discrimination in the workplace.
If you find that punitive damages should be assessed against the
Defendant, you may consider the financial resources of the Defendant
in fixing the amount of such damages.]
1.5.1 Americans With Disabilities Act
(Disparate Treatment Claim)
42 USC §§ 12101 - 12117
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO THE JURY
Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence:
1. That the Plaintiff had a “disability,” as defined in the Court’s
Instructions? Answer Yes or No
2. That the Plaintiff was a “qualified individual,” as defined in the Court’s
Instructions? Answer Yes or No
3. That the Plaintiff was [refused employment] [discharged from
employment] [not promoted] by the Defendant? Answer Yes or No
4. That the Plaintiff’s disability was a substantial or motivating factor that
prompted the Defendant to take that action? Answer Yes or No
[Note: If you answered No to any of the preceding questions you need
not answer the remaining questions.]
5. That the Plaintiff should be awarded damages to compensate for a
net loss of wages and benefits to the date of trial? Answer Yes or No
If your answer is Yes, in what amount? $
6. That the Plaintiff should be awarded damages to compensate for
emotional pain and mental anguish? Answer Yes or No
2. That the Plaintiff was a “qualified individual,” as defined in the Court’s
Instructions? Answer Yes or No
3. That the Plaintiff was [refused employment] [discharged from
employment] [not promoted] by the Defendant? Answer Yes or No
4. That the Plaintiff’s disability was a substantial or motivating factor that
prompted the Defendant to take that action? Answer Yes or No
[Note: If you answered No to any of the preceding questions you need
not answer the remaining questions.]
5. That the Plaintiff should be awarded damages to compensate for a
net loss of wages and benefits to the date of trial? Answer Yes or No
If your answer is Yes, in what amount? $
6. That the Plaintiff should be awarded damages to compensate for
emotional pain and mental anguish? Answer Yes or No
If your answer is Yes, in what amount? $
7(a). That a higher management official of the Defendant acted with
malice or reckless indifference to the Plaintiff’s federally protected
rights? Answer Yes or No
(b) If your answer is Yes, that the Defendant itself had not acted in a
good faith attempt to comply with the law by adopting policies and
procedures designed to prohibit such discrimination in the workplace?
Answer Yes or No
(c) If your answer is Yes, what amount of punitive damages, if any,
should be assessed against the Defendant? $ .
SO SAY WE ALL.
Foreperson
DATED:
ANNOTATIONS AND COMMENTS
The definitions of the various terms given in this instruction were derived
primarily from 29 CFR § 1630.2. As with Title VII actions, a prevailing plaintiff in
an action under the Americans With Disabilities Act may recover back pay, other
past and future pecuniary losses, damages for pain and suffering, punitive
damages, and reinstatement or front pay. This is due to 42 U.S.C. §12117(a)
which states that the remedies and enforcement procedures available in 42
U.S.C. §§ 2000e-4, 2000e-5, 2000e-6, 2000e-8, and 2000e-9 apply to actions for
disability discrimination under the ADA. Pursuant to this incorporation provision,
a prevailing plaintiff is entitled to back pay, reinstatement, and/or front pay as
provided in § 2000e-5(g)(1). See e.g., Ward v. Papa’s Pizza, To Go, Inc., 907 F.
Supp. 1535 (S.D. Ga. 1995). (remedies under the ADA parallel those available
for Title VII suits); Lewis v. Board of Trustees of Alabama State University, 874 F.
Supp. 1299 (M.D. Ala. 1995) (case law applicable to enforcement procedures in
Title VII cases is applicable to ADA cases as well because ADA incorporates
enforcement procedures of Title VII). See Annotations and Comments, Federal
Claims Instruction No. 1.2.1, supra. A plaintiff may also recover compensatory
(emotional pain and suffering) and punitive damages (exclusive of back pay and
interest on back pay) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(a)(2). Further, the statutory
caps on damages provided in 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3) apply equally to ADA
employment discrimination actions, and either party may demand a jury trial
when the complainant seeks compensatory or punitive damages. These caps are
as follows: The sum of the amount of compensatory damages awarded under
this section for future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience,
mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses, and the
amount of punitive damages awarded under this section, shall not exceed, for
each complaining party-- (A) in the case of a respondent who has more than 14
and fewer than 101 employees in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the
current or preceding calendar year, $50,000; (B) in the case of a respondent who
has more than 100 and fewer than 201 employees in each of 20 or more
calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, $100,000; and (C) in
the case of a respondent who has more than 200 and fewer than 501 employees
in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year,
$200,000; and (D) in the case of a respondent who has more than 500
employees in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding
calendar year, $300,000. 42 U.S.C. § 1981(b)(3). Compensatory and punitive
damages under § 1981a may not be awarded “where the covered entity
demonstrates good faith efforts, in consultation with the person with the disability
who has informed the covered entity that accommodation is needed, to identify
and make a reasonable accommodation that would provide such individual with
an equally effective opportunity and would not cause an undue hardship on the
operation of the business.” 42 U.S.C. §1981a(a)(3). As with Title VII actions in
the Eleventh Circuit, back pay has usually been determined by the jury, and
reinstatement or front pay has been determined by the court. See e.g., Kemp v.
Monge, 919 F. Supp. 404 (M.D. Fla. 1996); Ward v. Papa’s Pizza To Go, Inc.,
907 F. Supp. 1535 (S.D. Ga. 1995) (front pay awards are given in employment
discrimination cases when necessary to effectuate fully the make whole
purposes of anti-discrimination laws, that is, when back pay does not fully
redress a plaintiff's injuries, and reinstatement is not possible). In addition, 42
U.S.C. § 12205 authorizes the court to award a reasonable attorney’s fee to the
prevailing party.