The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee recently ruled that a plaintiff with Shy Bladder Syndrome may be able to make out a claim of disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In Melman v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Case No. 3:08-cv-1205 (M. D. Tenn. 7/9/09), the plaintiff alleged that he suffered from a “shy bladder” that precluded him from providing an adequate urine sample for drug testing purposes. Plaintiff worked for the government of Nashville as a bus driver, and pursuant to United States Department of Transportation (“DOT”) Regulations, was subject to random drug screens.
In February of 2008, when he was unable to provide a sample for a drug test, he was considered by the testing Medical Review Officer, and subsequently by the Nashville government, as refusing to take the test. Plaintiff offered to provide a sample through any alternative means, and his doctor even offered to catheterize him for the purpose of obtaining a sample. These offers were rejected, and he was ultimately removed from the bus driver job and transferred to a bus monitor position, which was less prestigious and did not have the opportunity to earn overtime.
Plaintiff sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the defendant moved to dismiss the case on the pleadings. In the complaint, the plaintiff alleged that he was disabled under the ADA because he was “substantially limited in the major life function of the elimination of bodily waste.” Since the case was at a very early stage, and the judge was only ruling based on the pleadings, all of the plaintiff’s allegations had to be treated as if they were true. The judge stated that “determining whether the medical problem alleged in the complaint constitutes a disability . . . is not proper at the pleadings stage.” Thus, the court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss and allowed the plaintiff’s case to go forward.
I bring this case to your attention not because of some penchant for bathroom humor, but instead to show the beginning of a trend that employers will likely see under the recent amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act. As you may recall, the ADAAA added a category of major life activities to the definition of disabled: major bodily functions. Thus, any condition which substantially limits a major bodily function may now constitute a disability. It is unclear whether the plaintiff’s inability to use a public restroom or provide a urine sample for a drug test would constitute a “substantial limitation,” but cases like this should put employers on alert that the definition of disability is now substantially broader than it used to be. Employers must take this change into consideration when handling accommodation requests, such as those raised in the case above.