Under the direct method, what did Ferrari need to show

1. Under the direct method, what did Ferrari need to show to establish a disability under the ADA? Was he successful? Why or Why not?
2. What must Ferrari establish to succeed under the indirect method? Is Ferrari able to establish a prima facie case of discrimination? Why or why not?
3. In your opinion, does Ford have enough evidence to show he is disabled? Does it matter that Ferrari’s disability is a result of an on the job accident? What type of policy might you develop to deal with this sort of situation?

Issue: Whether the employer discriminated against the employee because of his opoid use, thereby violating the ADA and whether the employer engaged in FMLA retaliation. 

Facts: Ford Motor Company hired Ferrari in 1996. Initially, he worked in assembly.  In 2000, he suffered a neck injury at work, which caused him to go on medical leave from June 2001 to April 2003. After Ferrari returned from medical leave, Ford accommodated his restrictions for the next nine years by placing him in various light-work positions. The last of these placements was in a human resources office. During this period, Ferrari applied for and received leave under the FMLA four times. At least two of the FMLA requests stemmed from his neck injury. The fourth, in summer 2012, was for stress and major depression, which Ferrari attributed to his immediate supervisor in the human resources department.

When Ferrari returned to work, he applied for an apprenticeship program, but was denied the position, in part, because he was using opioids to treat his prior injury. The apprenticeship would require Ferrari to climb ladders.

After reviewing the restrictions from the doctor, Ferrari was cleared “to work without restrictions from a physical perspective.” However, the supervisor concluded that Ferrari’s restrictions precluded him from participating in the apprenticeship “[b]ecause having the ability to work overhead and climb ladders on a daily basis are essential to performing any RMI job.”

Ferrari was not given the apprenticeship and instead was given a machinists position.  Ferrari sued Ford in November 2013 for violations of the ADA, PWDCRA, and FMLA.  The District Court granted summary Judgment for Ford and Ferrari appeals.

Decision: The court found that the employer did not regard employee’s opioid use as a disability; the employer’s stated reason for its employment decision was not pretext for discrimination under ADA; and the employee failed to establish a prima facie case of FMLA retaliation.