Issues in Employment Law

December 2001

Employers must not discharge their employees for refusing to do something that would violate the law.

In Szaller v. American National Red Cross, No. 01-2014 (June 5, 2002), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that there was no violation of Maryland public policy when a former employee of the Red Cross was fired for reporting alleged violations of federal regulations. Specifically, the employee reported problems with blood handling and staff training that he believed violated FDA regulations to the Red Cross hotline. The Court's reasoning was that the employee in this case had no legal duty or right to report such potential violations. Because no public policy was violated and because the employment was "at-will," the employer was well within its rights to fire the employee.

However, the Court did point out that firing employees for (1) refusing to violate the law or (2) doing something they had a legal right or duty to do, would violate Maryland public policy and thus constitute a wrongful discharge.

Similarly, employers cannot fire employees for exercising a specific legal right or duty. An employer may be liable for wrongful discharge if the motivation for firing the employee violates a clear mandate of public policy. If you have a question regarding the specific legal rights and duties of your employees, please consult us.

What qualifies as a "disability" for purposes of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is determined on a case-by-case basis.

Although temporary impairments (such as back injuries) generally do not qualify as "disabilities" under the ADA, they may potentially turn into more permanent injuries that would be qualifying "disabilities." Employers should consider allowing injured or impaired employees to temporarily work in other capacities for the company that would accommodate the impairment. Although the court looks at length, severity, and possibility of permanence of an injury, what the court would determine to be a disability is not always clear.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Pollard v. High's of Baltimore, No. 01-1342 (Feb. 25, 2002) that an employee's temporary back injury did not substantially impair her major life activity of working, so as to be covered by the ADA. The employee (manager) here was suffering from back pains because she was recovering from surgery. As such, she did not suffer from a permanent disability. In easing the employee back into her job by having her perform cashier duties, the employer was acting responsibly and complying with the doctor's recommendation. Please consult us if you have any questions about impairments or reasonable accommodations.