Never miss a story — sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan benefits news.
Video Survellience Sufficient to Fire Employee on Short-term Disability
John Denham worked at Sunoco Inc. for 25 years when he
took a medical leave in May 2000 due to neck, left shoulder
and back ailments and began receiving short-term disability
payments. During the period in which Denham was on leave,
his supervisor heard comments from other employees that
Denham had been engaging in physical activity that his
disability would have inhibited.
The company hired a private investigator, who videotaped
Denham doing activities Sunoco’s physician said he
should not or could not have been doing if he suffered from
back and neck ailments. The tape submitted to Sunoco showed
a man working on an automobile and lifting 50-pound bags,
the court said. According to the court, Denham admitted
being the individual shown working on an automobile, but
denied being the person shown lifting the 50-pound
bags.
Denham was eventually discharged on January 10, 2001,
after the Tulsa refinery personnel reviewed the matter with
corporate officials in the company’s Philadelphia
headquarters.
Denham filed a wrongful termination suit in Oklahoma state
court, but because the federal Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) preempted state law the case was moved
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma, which ruled that Sunoco’s rationale for firing
Denham was both “reasonable and believable.”
The appeals court also agreed with the lower court in
rejecting Denham’s argument that Sunoco’s human resources
department should have investigated his disability status,
not the benefits plan administrator.
According to the opinion, Sunoco supported its decision to
fire Denham by having the following:
- Reports from other employees regarding Denham’s activities while collecting short-term disability;
- Videotape indisputably showing him working on his truck and doing errands with no apparent impairment in movement;
- Signed affidavit from a private investigator identifying Denham as the person in the videotape lifting fifty-pound sacks; and
- The opinion of the company doctor that a person with Denham’s impairments could not be engaging in the activity depicted in the videotape.
The opinion Denham v. Sunoco Inc., 10th Cir., No. 06-5040, 2/21/07 is here .
You Might Also Like:
EEOC Says 74-Year-Old Worker Forced to Retire After Medical Leave
EEOC Wellness Program Rule Lawsuit Decided in Favor of AARP
The district court had previously ruled against the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, finding AARP did not prove irreparable...
EEOC, Orion Reach Agreement on Wellness Program Challenge
« WI Supreme Court to Consider Municipality Intervention in Domestic Partner Benefits Case