HIV-Positive, Alcoholic Tax Consultant's Removal From Project Was Not In Retaliation For ADA-Protected Activity
In this case, the United States District Court held that a tax consultant's removal from a project was not in retaliation for protected activity under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The consultant, who was HIV-positive and a recovering alcoholic, failed to establish that he engaged in an activity protected by the ADA. The consultant's email to the firm's managing partner complaining that a coworker had disclosed unspecified "health issues" did not refer to any physical or mental restrictions he suffered, and a subsequent email to the firm's HR Generalist did not complain about discrimination or a refusal to accommodate his alleged disability.
The four-day temporal proximity between the consultant's second "complaint" and his reassignment from the project was insufficient to show causation given that the sole decisionmaker was completely unaware of his internal "complaints."
In any event, the client's
proffered reasons for its removal decision, because the consultant missed
deadlines, billed an inordinate amount of General and Administrative time, and
yelled at a coworker in front of the client's employees then stormed off the
job, and because its CFO had decided to move the tax function in-house, were
legitimate and nonretaliatory and were not shown to be pretextual.
St. John v. NCI Bldg.
Systems, Inc.