Telling Social Security One Thing and the Court Another - Doing the Analysis

Four years ago, the Supreme Court held that an employee or applicant who had qualified for social security disability payments, by saying he was permanently disabled, was not automatically barred from claiming that he had been discriminated against under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Cleveland v. Policy Mgmt. Sys. Corp., 526 U.S. 795 (1999) Instead, the Supreme Court outlined an analytical model for courts to follow in making that decision. This week, in an age discrimination case, the 3rd Circuit offers a textbook example of how such an analysis should be done. Detz v. Greiner Industries, Inc. (3rd Cir. 10/7/03) [pdf]. The end result is the case is thrown out because of the contradictory statements, unable to work for SS benefits, but claims of discrimination in court. Hard not to sense the displeasure of the Court for some one trying to have it both ways.