Massachusetts Appeals Court Broadly Interprets Employee Handbook
By Marc C. Laredo

Massachusetts employers should carefully review their employee handbooks in light of a recent Massachusetts appellate court decision. In Ferguson v. Host Int'l, Inc., the Court held that a former employee could sue his employer for breach of contract based on the company's employee handbook, despite the inclusion of a disclaimer in the handbook. The employee, who did not have a formal employment contract, was terminated for exhibiting rude behavior to a customer. The employee argued that the employer should have followed the progressive discipline procedure set forth in the employee handbook, which called for oral and written warnings for employee misconduct prior to termination. The employer argued that the manual could not form a contract between itself and the employee based on the written disclaimer, which specified that the handbook was not intended to create any contractual rights. The Court disagreed, noting that the disclaimer was buried in the "fine print" of the handbook's introductory section. Therefore, the Court denied the employer's motion for summary judgment and allowed the plaintiff to proceed with his case. This decision should prompt employers to have their handbooks reviewed by employment counsel to ensure the proper location and wording of any disclaimers and to minimize this and other potential pitfalls.

United States Supreme Court Narrows Definition of Disability

The United States Supreme Court, in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, significantly narrowed the definition of disability under the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA") as it pertains to performing manual tasks. The ADA provides that an employee must be substantially limited in one of several major life activities to qualify as disabled. The plaintiff, who suffered from carpal tunnel syndrome, claimed that she was substantially limited in the major life activity of performing manual tasks and alleged that Toyota impermissibly denied her request that her job only include certain tasks. The Supreme Court held that in order to be disabled from performing manual tasks, an employee must be substantially limited or unable to perform "activities that are of central importance to most people's daily lives," rather than being merely limited from performing work-related tasks. The Court determined that the plaintiff, who was unable to perform repetitive tasks with her arms extended at shoulder level, was not disabled within the meaning of the ADA, because these tasks were not of central importance to "people's daily lives." Therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to the reasonable accommodations she sought from her employer under the ADA. It is unclear how Massachusetts courts will interpret the state law counterpart to the ADA regarding this issue. Massachusetts employers are advised to seek employment counsel or human resource professionals and to proceed with caution when responding to requests for accommodation.

For more information about these and other important employment law developments or to inquire about having your company's employment practices and procedures audited to prevent costly legal pitfalls, please contact Lisa Cooney, Esq. at (617) 367-7984, cooney@faxlar.com.

This Alert has been prepared for clients and friends of Faxon & Laredo, LLP. Its purpose is to provide general information about legal Developments and should not be used as a substitute for professional advice on your particular legal situation.

Please Note: The purpose of this article is to provide general information about legal developments and should not be used as a substitute for professional advice on your particular legal situation.

Copyright © 2003 Laredo & Smith, LLP. All rights reserved.