Can COVID Be an ADA-Covered Disability? Alabama Federal Court Says “Yes.”

28 February 2022 Blog
Author(s): Felicia S. O'Connor
Published To: Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Coronavirus Resource Center:Back to Business

As the COVID pandemic continues, and an increasing number of employees have contracted the virus, there are many potential employment issues surrounding an employee’s positive test result.  At the outset of the pandemic, many states and local governments imposed rules on employers requiring mandatory isolation and/or quarantine of employees who tested positive or were exposed to COVID. 

Over time, those restrictions have changed or lifted in most areas, but the legal issues remain. In fact, in some cases the path for employers is more complicated by the lack of governmental requirements.  Should employees be granted time off for having contracting COVID, and if so, how much?  Are such employees entitled to FMLA leave?  Is COVID a disability under the ADA requiring the employer to consider reasonable accommodations?  A federal court in Alabama recently weighed in on one of the key issues regarding an employee’s COVID diagnosis – application of the ADA.

In the case at issue, the employee tested positive for COVID and was ordered by her doctor to isolate for 14 days (consistent with CDC requirements at the time).  The employer terminated the employee’s employment on the 13th day of isolation, when she refused to return to work before the 14-day isolation period ended.  The employee filed suit alleging, among other claims, that her employer violated the ADA by refusing to grant her leave as an accommodation. 

A motion to dismiss the case brought the question to the Court:  Does a COVID diagnosis count as a disability under the ADA? 

In its defense, the employer argued that the employee’s COVID diagnosis was not a disability under the ADA and that the employee had not alleged that her condition substantially limited a major life activity, as required by the law.  The employee contended that her symptoms, which allegedly included “severe weakness, fatigue, brain fog, high blood pressure, cough, difficulty breathing, fever, and swollen eyes,” did substantially limit major life activities.  The Court agreed with the employee, engaging in an analysis under the ADA in concluding that the employee alleged symptoms that substantially limited her ability to breathe, concentrate, and work, all major life activities.  As a result, the Court determined that COVID could be disability in certain circumstances, depending on the severity of the employee’s symptoms.

In its opinion, the Court was clear that not all cases of COVID will constitute a disability under the ADA.  Those employees with very mild or no symptoms may have no limitations to their major life activities.  The key take away for employers is that whether COVID is or is not a disability will be a case-by-case analysis depending on the employee’s symptoms.  If the symptoms limit the employee’s ability to work, the employer should consider the diagnosis a disability and engage in the interactive process with the employee to determine whether a reasonable accommodation (including leave) can be granted. 

Employers should resist the impulse to automatically consider COVID a short-term minor illness, like a cold, that would not have ADA implications.  As local requirements for leave are repealed or have expired, employees needing leave due to COVID symptoms may be more likely to turn to the ADA to provide time off while they are sick.  As this case shows, COVID can, in some cases be a disability.  If it is, employers should treat it accordingly by engaging in the interactive process.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.


Related Services