Issue Whether Job Applicant Suffering From Paranoid Schizophrenia Disorder Was “Disabled” Under Rehabilitation Act
John Doe suffers from paranoid schizophrenia disorder. From 1995 through 2005, because of his condition, he was hospitalized or lived in various group homes. In 2005, still under medical supervision, Doe began working with job developer Cordell DeGraw at the Center of Vocational Alternatives in Columbus, Ohio. Sometime in May 2005, DeGraw contacted Charles Snider, the supervisor of the Salvation Army's Adult Rehabilitation Center (ARC) warehouse and arranged for Doe to be interviewed for a truck driver position with the Salvation Army.
When Doe, accompanied by DeGraw, arrived for the interview, Snider instructed Doe to fill out an application and explained that the part-time job that was available required three eight-hour days per week and paid $7.00 per hour. Doe responded that he could not work on Fridays because, “he had to see his doctor, and pick up his medicine.” Snider asked Doe “what kind of medication” he took, and Doe responded, “psychotropic medicine.” According to Doe, at that point, Snider “stopped the interview and said that his insurance would not cover me.” Doe offered to obtain a letter from his doctor, but Snider refused to reconsider.
Snider ended the interview saying, “what I'll have to do is have this checked out,” meaning apparently that he wanted to determine whether the ARC's insurance policy would cover a driver using psychotropic medication. However, Snider never pursued an investigation into the insurance coverage and later hired nine other drivers.
Doe sued, alleging a violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. He claimed that he was eligible for relief because he had “a record of” a disability. He also claimed that the Salvation Army asked a “prohibited pre-employment inquiry” and denied him employment based on his answer. The district court granted the Salvation Army's motion for summary judgment, holding that Doe failed to establish the elements for a prima facie disability discrimination case.
On appeal, the 6th Circuit reversed, holding that summary judgment for the defendant was inappropriate because there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether Doe qualified as “disabled” under the Rehabilitation Act and whether the Salvation Army's failure to hire Doe was based solely on Doe's purported disability.
Doe v. Salvation Army in the US
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction includes Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee.