New psychiatric diagnostic categories could lead to spike in ADA claims
When the American Psychiatric Association (APA) released its new manual of psychiatric condition diagnoses in May, some employment lawyers sounded an alarm.
August 04, 2013 at 08:00 PM
5 minute read
When the American Psychiatric Association (APA) released its new manual of psychiatric condition diagnoses in May, some employment lawyers sounded an alarm. The so-called DSM-5 added new categories of diagnoses and loosened the criteria for others, raising concerns it could trigger more requests for workplace accommodation.
“The DSM-5 is the 'bible' for diagnosing psychiatric or mental disorders, and it adds more than a dozen new diagnoses [to its predecessor, DSM-4],” says Terry Dawson, a partner at Barnes & Thornburg. “In short, the DSM-5 may expand the types of behavior that might be considered a disability under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA).”
New diagnoses that could generate requests for workplace accommodation include mild neurocognitive disorder, binge eating disorder and premenstrual dysphoric disorder. Mild neurocognitive disorder afflicts older people and the workplace is aging dramatically; binge eating disorder can result in obesity, which is endemic; and premenstrual dysphoric disorder presumably could affect most women of childbearing age, so the potential for a jump in ADA disability claims should concern employers, some experts say.
“Experience has shown that when a new diagnostic category is introduced, a substantial number of people will be diagnosed with those newly defined conditions,” says James McDonald Jr., a Fisher & Phillips partner. “As people come to work with these new diagnoses and present it as an issue affecting employment, then employers need to be ready to respond.”
Disorders Defined
Among the new diagnoses problematic for employers is mild neurocognitive disorder, defined as a modest decline in learning and attention or memory that does not affect a person's ability to live independently but may require “greater effort, compensatory strategies or accommodation.” So an older employee might claim he needs an accommodation for forgetfulness or the inability to learn new skills.
“Just about anyone over age 50 might be eligible for this,” McDonald says. He points out that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) does not require employers to accommodate older workers, so they may turn to the ADA and use a diagnosis of mild neurocognitive disorder to obtain an accommodation.
Another new diagnosis is binge eating disorder, characterized by eating a large amount of food in a short time at least once a week for three months. According to DSM-5, most overweight people do not engage in binge eating, but this disorder is “reliably associated with overweight and obesity.”
Because the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recognizes only “morbid obesity” as a disability (see “Obesity Action”) a binge eating disorder diagnosis might help overweight employees qualify for accommodation. “Unless garden variety obesity becomes recognized as a disability, one way an employee could back into having obesity qualify for accommodation is by saying he has binge eating disorder, which is a recognized diagnosis under DSM-5,” McDonald says.
Premenstrual dysphoric disorder is a diagnosis for women with symptoms such as mood swings; increased interpersonal conflicts; anxiety or tension; overeating or food cravings; or weight gain, bloating or breast tenderness in the week prior to the start of the menstrual cycle.
“A condition that to date has been considered a fact of life is now characterized as a psychiatric disorder and potentially qualifies anyone diagnosed for accommodation,” McDonald says. That could lead to more requests for leaves of absence and altered work schedules, he adds.
Another View
Some attorneys who represent employers think the concern over DSM-5 is an overreaction.
“I don't think DSM-5 on its own is any reason for having a panic attack,” says Peter Petesch, a Littler Mendelson shareholder.
Petesch says that while disability claims arising from mental and emotional disorders may continue to rise, the primary reason is the 2008 ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) and the ensuing EEOC guidance. The EEOC defined certain psychiatric conditions, including major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and post-traumatic stress disorder as conditions that almost always qualify as disabilities. It also made it easier to claim a psychiatric condition substantially impacts a “major life activity” and therefore is a disability.
“When such things as concentration and thinking are listed as major life activities, there are many more mental disorders or conditions that will rise to the level of a disability,” Petesch says. “The focus is more on the ADAAA. I don't think you can blame the American Psychiatric Association for any spike in claims of disability.”
Within Limits
Regardless of the impetus for rising claims of mental and emotional disorders, employers should prepare their human resources departments so they appropriately handle resulting accommodation requests.
“Human resources professionals and supervisors should be aware that the DSM-5 may trigger additional requests for accommodation,” says Dawson. “Employers will need to be prepared to engage in the interactive process under the ADA to determine how and whether accommodations can or must be provided to such employees.”
Training should include information on the limits of an employer's duty to accommodate, adds McDonald. For example, an employer need not eliminate the essential functions of the job or approve an indefinite leave of absence.
“It requires people handling accommodation requests to be up to speed on where the boundaries are,” McDonald says.
Petesch adds that employees with a mental disability are not shielded from conforming with uniformly applied work and behavioral standards.
“If a person isn't performing, or engages in unacceptable behavior, he doesn't have to be forgiven,” Petesch says.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAI Adoption, Data Center Building Boom Opening More Doors for Cybercriminals, Many of Them Teenagers
Another Senior Boeing Attorney Exits, This One for CLO Post at Jet-Maintenance Company
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250