Plaintiff, a former employee of our management company client, contended he was subjected to unlawful discrimination and harassment as the result of a disability relating to his eyesight, which was not contested and required that a 10 lbs. lifting restriction be in place as an accommodation. The plaintiff alleged a constructive discharge after nearly three and a half years of employment with the company, claiming that the 10 lbs. lifting restriction was not followed, that he was encouraged to violate the restriction, and that he was the subject of jokes and other negative comments attributable to his disability.
At the close of discovery, our colleague, Kyle McGee, Esq., contended in a Motion for Summary Judgement that our client complied with all aspects of the West Virginia Human Rights Act, did not subject the plaintiff to the conditions alleged, and fully accommodated his needs. The Court agreed and in support of Kyle’s Motion for Summary Judgment noted our client had, in fact, assigned the plaintiff to a job that generally did not require him to lift more than ten pounds, that plaintiff had successfully performed the job for three months before his resignation, and that the employer had provided temporary assistance to the plaintiff any time he needed to perform a task that may have violated his lifting restriction. Beyond this, the Court found that there was no causal link between the plaintiff’s alleged discrimination claims and his resignation. Rather, the court found that there existed insufficient evidence, if any, that would link his alleged constructive discharge to his disability.