District Court holds that plaintiff's receipt of Social Security Disability benefits judicially estopped her from proceeding with her disability discrimination claim.

The plaintiff received a letter on August 29, 2007, which notified her that her employment with the employer was suspended and the employer would be considering her termination at its next meeting. On September 21, 2007, the plaintiff received notification that her employment was terminated for insubordination and failure to follow directions. Following the plaintiff's suspension, she applied for unemployment compensation, filed an EEOC charge and applied for Social Security Disability benefits. The plaintiff was awarded Social Security Disability benefits retroactive to September 2, 2007, on May 19, 2010. The plaintiff's instant lawsuit, however, alleged that her employer discriminated against her on the basis of her mental health disability. According to the documents submitted to the EEOC, the plaintiff alleged that her depression "did not affect my ability to perform my job" and she was able to perform her job functions. In the plaintiff's application for Social Security Disability benefits, however, she alleged that she was "rendered totally disabled upon being diagnosed with bipolar disorder days after being suspended" and she became "unable to work because of [her] disabling condition on September 2, 2007." After her Social Security Disability application was denied, the plaintiff appealed and was ultimately awarded benefits. As part of the benefits awarded, the "Social Security Administration concluded that [plaintiff] was unable to perform any past relevant work and there were no jobs in the national economy that [plaintiff] could perform." In dismissing the plaintiff's claims, the court noted that there was "an obvious and inherent contradiction between [the] two legal positions" for obtaining Social Security Disability benefits (i.e., where one must show that he or she is totally disabled) and succeeding on a disability discrimination claim (i.e., where an employee must show that he or she can perform the essential functions of the previous job, with or without reasonable accommodations). Moreover, the court noted that when a plaintiff makes contradictory statements of pure fact before the Social Security Administration and before the court in an ADA claim, the court can apply the "usual judicial estoppels analysis" to determine whether the statements are "actually inconsistent, whether they were made in bad faith, and whether judicial estoppels is an appropriate remedy." In determining that judicial estoppel was an appropriate remedy, the court expressly noted that the plaintiff "has offered no plausible explanation for [her] contradictions, and in fact, has denied that she ever made any contradictory statements of fact." The court further found that the plaintiff "has tailored her factual statements to advance her interests in whatever forum she was then appearing [and] [w]e find it particularly egregious that [plaintiff] failed to inform this court, and perhaps even her own attorneys, of the fact that she appeared at a Social Security Administration appeal hearing and received a fully favorable notice of decision awarding her Social Security Disability benefits, retroactive to September 2007, while the first summary judgment was under advisement." As a result, the court determined that the plaintiff had acted in bad faith and she was, accordingly, judicially stopped from proceeding with her remaining disability discrimination claim. This mater was handled before the U.S. District Court by Teresa Sirianni, Esquire of our Pittsburgh office.

Case Law Alert - 4th Qtr 2011