In August 2000, Catholic Medical Center Physician Practice Associates purchased Jonathan Jaffe, M.D.’s medical practice and negotiated a contract to employ Dr. Jaffe.  Previously, in 1993, Dr. Jaffe had sustained a cervical spinal cord injury in a car accident, which aggravated his pre-existing balance problems.  In 1999, he fell again injuring his cervical spinal cord.  As a result of the fall, Dr. Jaffe suffered from short-term paralysis, additional balance problems, and restricted use of his hands.  He underwent surgery in January 2001 in an attempt to alleviate these problems and was on leave from work for several weeks.  Dr. Jaffe continued to have poor balance, causing difficulty with standing and walking, as well as problems with the use of his hands.  In May 2001, Dr. Jaffe’s employment was terminated.

Dr. Jaffe subsequently filed suit in the federal district court in New Hampshire against his former employer, Catholic Medical Center and Catholic Medical Center Physician Practice Associates, claiming violations of the American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), breach of his employment contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  The Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that Dr. Jaffe could not meet his burden of proof on the ADA claims and that the facts show they did not breach his employment contract or the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

In reviewing the record in the light most favorable to Dr. Jaffe, the court determined that, while Dr. Jaffe may periodically experience moderate restrictions in walking and manual tasks, there was no support in the record for his claim that his impairments substantially limited a major life activity.  In addition, Dr. Jaffe could not prove that the Defendants mistakenly believed that he had specific impairments that substantially limited a major life activity.  Dr. Jaffe’s evidence that the Defendants attempted to accommodate his physical therapy session, find another physician to assist with his workload, and inquire whether he wanted to apply for disability benefits was simply insufficient.  This evidence neither showed what impairment or impairments the Defendants mistakenly believed were disabling nor that the Defendants believed Dr. Jaffe had any particular impairment that significantly affected a major life activity.  Accordingly, while his other claims survived, the court granted summary judgment on Dr. Jaffe’s ADA claim because he was unable to show a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he was disabled, the first element of an ADA claim.

This District Court’s decision in the Jaffe case reiterates that a plaintiff cannot succeed on an ADA claim without establishing the elements of an ADA claim as follows: (1) the plaintiff was disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) the plaintiff was qualified to perform the essential functions of the plaintiff’s job, with or without accommodation; and (3) the employer took adverse action against the plaintiff because of the plaintiff’s disability.