'Disability association' claim won't fly, judge says

A manager of a regional airline has lost his suit claiming that he’d been discharged on account of his wife’s disability.
Eugene Stansberry managed Air Wisconsin’s operations at the Kalamazoo, MI airport from 1999 to 2007.
His wife developed a rare and debilitating autoimmune disorder, which worsened in 2007 — around the same time Air Wisconsin was dramatically enlarging its operations in Kalamazoo.
Problems ensued. Several security violation notices — including one from the federal Transportation Security Administration — were issued to Air Wisconsin, but Stansberry failed to notify headquarters of the notices.
He was eventually fired for not reporting the violations, failing to properly supervise workers and problems handling his budget.
Stansberry filed suit, charging he’d been fired because Air Wisconsin feared his wife’s disability would distract him from his work.
Air Wisconsin said Stansberry had been fired for poor job performance.
The court sided with the employer, noting that Air Wisconsin had been aware of Stansberry’s wife’s condition for years — undercutting his claim that the employer had concerns about whether her disability would distract him from his duties.
In addition, the court said, “the record contains extensive evidence that Stansberry was not performing his job to Air Wisconsin’s satisfaction … his poor performance is a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for Air Wisconsin to terminate him.”
And here’s the kicker: The judge pointed out that although the law bars “associational” discrimination against employees with disabled relatives, it does not require an employer to provide accommodation to any worker who’s not disabled themselves.
Positive sign for employers
Since the Supreme Court ruled earlier this  year that third parties can sue for discrimination (remember Thompson v. North American Stainless, in which an employee’s fiance was fired in retaliation for her filing a sex discrimination complaint?), many observers have wondered whether we’d see a spate of such cases.
The Stansberry ruling provides employers with a little more confidence that yes, you can make termination decisions based on performance — even if there’s a relationship that might qualify for third-party protection.
Cite: Stansberry v. Air Wisconsin Airlines. For the full decision, go here.