Thomas v. PNC Bank, N.A.
2018 Ohio 4000
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Sonia Thomas, a PNC employee, broke both hands on May 16, 2014 and was placed on short-term disability leave through July 3, 2014.
- While she was on leave PNC discovered preexisting policy violations; upon her return Thomas was placed on paid administrative leave and discharged one week later.
- Thomas sued for wrongful discharge under Ohio disability-discrimination law, claiming PNC perceived her as disabled.
- At trial the court directed a verdict for PNC at the close of Thomas’s case-in-chief, finding her injury was "transitory and minor" and thus not a legally cognizable disability or basis for a "regarded as" claim.
- Thomas argued that being "perceived" as impaired sufficed regardless of severity; the court and this panel applied federal ADA "transitory and minor" guidance and concluded the injury did not qualify.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Thomas) | Defendant's Argument (PNC) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a plaintiff may establish a "regarded as" disability claim without regard to injury duration/severity | Thomas: employer’s perception of impairment is enough even for brief injuries | PNC: federal ADA standard excludes impairments that are "transitory and minor" (≤6 months) | Held for PNC: broken bones here were transitory and minor as a matter of law, so "regarded as" protection does not apply |
| Whether Thomas presented evidence that PNC perceived her as disabled when terminated | Thomas: being placed on disability leave shows PNC perceived her as disabled | PNC: labels on leave are irrelevant; no statements or restrictions showed continued perception of disability at return | Held for PNC: no evidence PNC regarded her as disabled when she returned or at termination |
| Admissibility and relevance of PNC’s disability-leave policy | Thomas: policy and testimony would show PNC’s perception and practices | PNC: policy labels do not change statutory definition; policy irrelevant if injury is not covered | Court did not reach due to transitory/minor ruling; appellate court moots this claim |
| Whether PNC’s stated reasons for termination were pretext | Thomas: termination was pretext for discrimination | PNC: termination followed investigation into policy violations unrelated to disability | Mooted by failure to establish prima facie "regarded as" claim; appellate court did not decide pretext |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination cases)
- Hood v. Diamond Prods., 74 Ohio St.3d 298 (sets elements for "regarded as" disability claims under Ohio law)
- Budhun v. Reading Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 765 F.3d 245 (an employer must show a perceived impairment is objectively "transitory and minor")
- Silk v. Bd. of Trustees, 795 F.3d 698 (applying ADA amendments: transitory impairments excluded from "regarded as" protection)