Previous Statements About Disability May Not Preclude Eligibility in Subsequent Proceedings

Johnson claimed that her employer fired her in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). The magistrate judge below granted the employer's motion for summary judgment following the employer's introduction of statements that Johnson had made about the extent and nature of her disability on applications for disabilities benefits. The Ninth Circuit, reversing the magistrate judge's grant of summary judgment for the employer, held that Johnson's "pursuit or receipt per se of disability benefits does not bar [her] ADA claims." The court reasoned that, although representations by plaintiff's on disability benefits applications are "useful evidence" in ADA cases, and, in fact, "may be binding in subsequent ADA claims," as definitions of "disability" differ, "an individual can meet both the eligibility requirements for receipt of disability benefits and the definition of a 'qualified individual with a disability' for ADA purposes." Therefore, the court noted, "a statement averring a legal conclusion in a previous application or proceeding as to disability may not always preclude eligibility in subsequent applications or proceedings." Note that this case is in direct conflict with several others addressing the same issue.