1. To what extent could Phoenix’s liability have been avoided had it documented Wilson’s alleged inability to perform required tasks on the new computer system? In your opinion, is Phoenix required to wait until Wilson makes a costly mistake before concluding that he cannot perform the functions of the job? Are there alternatives short of waiting for a mistake?

2. What could Phoenix have done to improve its handling of the medical diagnoses? Where did it go wrong?

3. What type of policy could you develop that would instruct your managers about how to handle an employee with Parkinson’s disease or other serious medical condition that would have avoided the mistakes that Wilson’s employer made?

Issue: How should the “regarded as” rule be applied to an employer’s treatment of an employee whose impairment does not substantially limit a major life activity? What evidence should courts accept in determining whether an employer perceives an employee as disabled?

Facts: Jimmy Wilson was a shipping supervisor diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. The disease caused Wilson to lose motor control in his right hand and to experience anxiety. Following a leave of absence triggered by the disease, Wilson returned to work without restrictions; and his condition was stabilized by medications. The company, however, treated him differently after his return and formed an opinion that he was unable to perform certain tasks. The company later reduced its work force by two salaried employees, including Wilson, and subsequently refused his request for an hourly position, even though it granted the same request for the other salaried employee who was dismissed at the same time. Wilson sued his former employer for violations of the ADA, and the court ruled that the employer treated him as disabled and terminated him because it perceived him as disabled. The company appealed.

Decision: The Fourth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s decision, determining that the perceptions on employer Phoenix’s part about the extent of Wilson’s impairment were inaccurate. The company, in other words, believed that Wilson’s Parkinson’s symptoms were substantially more limiting than they actually were, as indicated in further findings by the district court and the record.