St. Paul Fire Captain Scott St. Martin applied for promotion to one of three available district chief positions. During the interview, Fire Chief Timothy Butler asked him “I understand you haven’t been working. I know that you have an injury (reconstructive knee surgery). What do you have?” Despite passing the exam and being ranked second out of five by the panel, Chief Butler declined to select him (interestingly, the top-ranked candidate also was rejected).
In October, 2008, St. Martin again applied for a vacant district chief position. He vaguely recalled that Butler said “something referring to my medical condition” during the interview. Again, despite being recommended by the panel, St. Martin was not selected. Chief Butler told St. Martin that he was at a “competitive disadvantage” because he was not “involved daily in the operations and administration of department programs” and offered some suggestions about how to improve his record, provided that the activities did not “adversely impact your medical condition or the status of your disability.”
In January 2009, Butler emailed the City’s human resource department stating, among other things, that St. Martin “cannot do the job” of captain, and that he “would not willingly promote him unless I was forced to.” St. Martin ultimately sued the city of St. Paul under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”) and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (“MHRA”).
On March 4, 2011, United States District Court Judge David Doty granted the City’s Motion for summary judgment. St. Martin v. City of St. Paul, Civil No. 09-2045 (DSD-JJK) (D. Minn. March 4, 2011).
Plaintiff Feels Burned
Judge Doty first ruled that St. Martin was not disabled because, at most, he was unable to work only one particular job, namely fire captain. Since he did not prove that he was prevented from working a broader range of jobs as a result of his impairment, he was not covered under the ADA.
St. Martin then argued that the City regarded him as disabled as evidenced by:
- Butler’s question about St. Martin’s injury at the first interview. Judge Doty ruled that this too limited to be taken as proof of discriminatory intent, particularly since Butler also knew that St. Martin’s had been medically cleared to return to work.
- Butler’s suggestion that St. Martin was at a competitive disadvantage. Judge Doty ruled that this simply reflected the reality of St. Martin’s circumstances and that “[m]ere use of the word ‘disability’ is not evidence of discrimination” on that basis.
- Butler’s statement that he would not promote St. Martin. Judge Doty explained that this simply showed that Butler didn’t like St. Martin. Mere “[d]islike of an applicant is not unlawful.
Plaintiff’s Claim Flickers Out
Even if St. Martin could prove that he was disabled, Judge Doty explained that he would still lose. In the first promotion, Butler’s decision also to bypass the highest ranked candidate undermined St. Martin’s claim that he was singled out unfairly. The second promotion simply offered a more qualified candidate with seven years of post-secondary education who was trilingual and had military leadership experience. Therefore, St. Martin’s discrimination claim failed.
Bottom Line
Knowing about a medical condition and acting on it are two very different things. While it is generally advisable to focus on other matters in the hiring or promotional process, the fact that you know about a candidate’s medical issues does not automatically translate into an improper motive when an adverse decision is made.