In Lewis v. Humboldt Acquisition Corporation, Inc., __
F.3d ___, 2012 WL 1889389 (6th Cir. May 25, 2012), a 17 year old rule that plaintiffs
alleging violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) may
prevail only if they show that their disability was the “sole” reason for any
adverse employment action. The Court
of Appeals reversed, held, en banc,
that an employee is not required to show that her disability was the “sole”
reason for her termination in order to prevail on her ADA claim.
However, the Sixth Circuit refused to adopt the “motivating factor” analysis from
Title VII cases and ruled than an employee is required to show that her
disability was a “but for” cause of the employer’s adverse employment
action. The Court relied on Gross v. FBL Financial Services, 557
U.S. 167 (2009), where the Supreme Court construed similar language found in
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
