SSI Disability Benefits and Your Wrongful Termination/Discrimination Case
The leading case on the issue of a potential conflict between applying for SSI disability benefits and bringing a wrongful termination case based on FEHA/ADA disability discrimination is the US Supreme Court case Cleveland v Policy Management Systems Corporation (1999). In that case, tour highest court analyzed as follows:
"An ADA plaintiff bears the burden of proving that she is a “qualified individual with a disability”–that is, a person “who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions” of her job. And a plaintiff ’s sworn assertion in an application for disability benefits that she is, for example, “unable to work” will appear to negate an essential element of her ADA case–at least if she does not offer a sufficient explanation. For that reason, we hold that an ADA plaintiff cannot simply ignore the apparent contradiction that arises out of the earlier SSDI total disability claim. Rather, she must proffer a sufficient explanation... When faced with a plaintiff ’s previous sworn statement asserting “total disability” or the like, the court should require an explanation of any apparent inconsistency with the necessary elements of an ADA claim. To defeat summary judgment, that explanation must be sufficient to warrant a reasonable juror’s concluding that, assuming the truth of, or the plaintiff ’s good faith belief in, the earlier statement, the plaintiff could nonetheless “perform the essential functions” of her job, with or without “reasonable accommodation...”
In other words the above means that the SSI disability benefits applicant who is also pursuing a wrongful termination case based on disability discrimination in violation of ADA/FEHA must be careful in not making it look in his SSI application that he is completely unable or unfit to work with or without accommodations at the defendant-employer's workplace. Otherwise, the claimant runs the risk of having his case dismissed based on his submitted SSI application alone. This is because under the law, the employer doesn't have to accommodate a totally disabled employee who is unable to work with or without accommodations at the job site in question.
"An ADA plaintiff bears the burden of proving that she is a “qualified individual with a disability”–that is, a person “who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions” of her job. And a plaintiff ’s sworn assertion in an application for disability benefits that she is, for example, “unable to work” will appear to negate an essential element of her ADA case–at least if she does not offer a sufficient explanation. For that reason, we hold that an ADA plaintiff cannot simply ignore the apparent contradiction that arises out of the earlier SSDI total disability claim. Rather, she must proffer a sufficient explanation... When faced with a plaintiff ’s previous sworn statement asserting “total disability” or the like, the court should require an explanation of any apparent inconsistency with the necessary elements of an ADA claim. To defeat summary judgment, that explanation must be sufficient to warrant a reasonable juror’s concluding that, assuming the truth of, or the plaintiff ’s good faith belief in, the earlier statement, the plaintiff could nonetheless “perform the essential functions” of her job, with or without “reasonable accommodation...”
In other words the above means that the SSI disability benefits applicant who is also pursuing a wrongful termination case based on disability discrimination in violation of ADA/FEHA must be careful in not making it look in his SSI application that he is completely unable or unfit to work with or without accommodations at the defendant-employer's workplace. Otherwise, the claimant runs the risk of having his case dismissed based on his submitted SSI application alone. This is because under the law, the employer doesn't have to accommodate a totally disabled employee who is unable to work with or without accommodations at the job site in question.