No ADA claim for "shy bladder syndrome"

Google Image

By Deborah Elkins
Published: September 10, 2012
Tags: Employment Discrimination, Judge James C. Turk, U.S. District Court - Western District

A Roanoke U.S. District Court grants summary judgment to employer, residential door manufacturer CraftMaster, in a discrimination suit filed by a former truck loading specialist who alleges he suffered Title VII discrimination after he defended a victim of sexual harassment and disability discrimination when he was fired after he “failed” a drug test because his “shy bladder syndrome” prevented his performance of the drug test under surveillance.

Defendant was terminated after a scheduled follow-up drug test in which he did not provide a necessary urine sample. Per the policy of both CraftMaster and the testing company, this qualified as a positive drug test. This drug test was scheduled following a random drug test on Sept. 19, 2007, which the testing company thought had been altered. Following this suspicious test, the testing company asked defendant to submit to an observed drug test at their site. The testing company advised the employer that plaintiff “refused to submit” to the test, but defendant claimed a medical condition (paruresis, or “shy bladder syndrome”) prevented him from performing under observation by a doctor.

Plaintiff claims his termination violated Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act, as the employer did not accommodate his condition of shy bladder syndrome.

A review of the case law shows there are no cases in the 4th Circuit that determined that “shy bladder syndrome,” or paruresis, is a disability recognized under the ADA. Plaintiff cites the “leading case” of Kinneary v. City of New York, 601 F.3d 151 (2nd Cir. 2010), but in that case, the 2nd Circuit expressly did not resolve whether shy bladder syndrome can be a disability under the ADA.

Whether an individual has a disability depends on the effect of the impairment, not the diagnosis. In this case, plaintiff’s only evidence that he has an impairment at all is his own testimony. He never discussed his impairment with his employer or ever sought advice about it from a medical professional. Regardless, even if plaintiff had been diagnosed with paruresis, the determination of whether he had a disability would come from the effect the condition had on plaintiff, not the fact that he had it.

Plaintiff cannot meet the required showing that his limitation is substantial, and his claim that he has a disability under the ADA fails.

In the present case, plaintiff gives only one specific example of being completely unable to urinate because of his disorder, which was during his observed drug test. Plaintiff presents no evidence that his impairment prevented or severely restricted his ability to urinate at work or in the community, which counsels against finding his impairment was substantial. Plaintiff’s success at managing his difficulty was shown by the fact that he never notified his long-term employer of his paruresis or sought medical treatment for his disorder. Plaintiff’s impairment, which he claims has caused him difficulty only in crowded restrooms and at urinals, is much less severe than many impairments that were found not substantial enough to constitute disabilities.

As to plaintiff’s Title VII retaliation claim, he has shown that he was terminated after he engaged in protected activity of testifying in a workplace sexual harassment investigation, but he cannot prove the reason for his termination – failure of a drug test – was a pretext for discrimination. As he was terminated 14 months after he participated in the sexual harassment investigation, he cannot show a close temporal proximity between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.

Summary judgment for employer.

Linkous v. CraftMaster Mfg. Inc. (Turk) No. 7:10cv00107, July 16, 2012; USDC at Roanoke, Va. VLW 012-3-396, 15 pp.

RELATED ARTICLES (VLW 012-3-396)Fulltext Opinions

012-3-396 – Linkous v. Craftmaster Mfg. Inc.

Interesting case.

Tucker Griffin Barnes P.C.
Charlottesville, VA (434-973-7474)
Inquire@TGBLaw.com
www.TGBLaw.com