contradicting Telecare ’ s argument that Hautala ’ s comments were disqualifying for the position. The EEOC submitted as evidence an email from Telecare ’ s employees following Hautala ’ s interview in which they acknowledged Hautala ’ s comments, but nonetheless “advanced Hautala in the application process.” Id. at *13. As a result, in order to “avoid the potential for manifest error” and “in the interests of justice,” the court concluded that summary judgement on the issue of whether Hautala was a qualified individual was not appropriate and that “[d]enying Claimant Hautala a chance to have his substantive disability discrimination claims heard based on the EEOC ’ s failure to timely present the issue” was “a potential injustice that is easily avoided.” Id. at *15. The court, however, made clear that it was “not absolving” the EEOC “of its obligation to prove that Hautala was a qualified individual with a disability,” only that a factual dispute exists as to whether Telecare “would actually have considered the comments disqualifying.” Id. Finally, in EEOC v. Telecare Mental Health Services Of Washington, Inc ., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161459 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 12, 2023), the EEOC filed a motion for partial summary judgment, seeking dismissal of two of Telecare ’ s affirmative defenses. The registered nurse position at Telecare ’ s facility required physical tasks, including restraining and moving quickly to evade violent patients, standing or walking for prolonged periods, and squatting or rendering aid to patients on the floor. The court determined that there was a genuine dispute of fact regarding whether Hautala could perform the essential job functions, such as restraining patients, standing or walking for prolonged periods, and squatting/rendering aid on the floor. Telecare argued that Hautala ’ s leg injury would have prevented him from restraining and evading violent patients, which was considered an essential job function. Telecare claimed that Hautala could not run, pivot quickly, or restrain a patient with solely his upper body. The EEOC presented evidence that running was not a job requirement, and that Hautala could run if necessary. The physician assistant who conducted Hautala ’ s physical examination had no concerns about his ability to assist with patient restraint, and Hautala claimed he was among the top nurses capable of handling patients. Telecare contended that Hautala could not stand or walk for prolonged periods without discomfort or pain, making him unable to perform the job ’ s physical requirements. The EEOC argued that prolonged standing was not an essential function, and Hautala could walk as needed for the job. Hautala claimed he could withstand the pain without a break when required. Telecare asserted that Hautala could not squat frequently, quickly get up from a squatting position, or render aid to patients on the floor without pain. The EEOC countered that Hautala chose not to squat because of the pain but was capable of squatting. The job description indicated that squatting was occasionally required. The court found that there were genuine disputes of fact and law that made summary judgment inappropriate, and that the questions would need to be presented to the jury at trial. Telecare ’ s fourth affirmative defense was based on its assertion that its actions were supported by non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory business reasons, primarily focused on patient and staff safety. However, the court determined that this defense ’ s success relied on disputed facts about Hautala ’ s ability to restrain patients and therefore summary judgment was not appropriate. Telecare ’ s sixth affirmative defense claimed that providing accommodations, such as chairs for Hautala to sit in as needed, would have constituted an undue hardship. The court also determined that this defense was
28
© Duane Morris LLP 2024
The EEOC Litigation Review – 2024
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online