Skip to main content

Thomas v. PNC Bank, N.A.

Ohio Ct. App.September 27, 2018No. 106548Cited 2 times
Defendant WinPNC Bank, N.A.
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Stewart
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

DiscriminationWrongful Termination

Outcome

The court affirmed the directed verdict in favor of PNC Bank, finding that the plaintiff's broken hands constituted a transitory and minor impairment not covered by disability discrimination law, and that she failed to establish she was perceived as disabled at the time of discharge.

Excerpt

Disability discrimination perceived prima facie transitory and minor. A plaintiff claiming disability discrimination cannot make out a prima facie case of being perceived as disabled if the plaintiff's injuries are transitory and minor — defined under federal law as an impairment with an actual or expected duration of six months or less. Although plaintiff-employee had been placed on disability leave after breaking bones in both hands, her injuries healed and she returned to work in six weeks. The court did not err by directing a verdict in favor the defendant-employer because the plaintiff's injuries were thus transitory and minor, excluding her from a "perceived as" disabled discrimination claim.

What This Ruling Means

# Thomas v. PNC Bank Court Ruling Summary ## What Happened An employee at PNC Bank broke both her hands and was placed on disability leave. After six weeks of recovery, she returned to work. She was later fired and sued the bank, claiming she was discriminated against because the company viewed her as disabled. ## What the Court Decided The court ruled in favor of PNC Bank. The judge found that broken hands healing within six weeks qualify as a "transitory and minor" injury under federal disability law. Because her condition was temporary and brief, the employee could not claim she was protected as a disabled worker under discrimination laws. The court determined she had not proven the bank saw her as disabled when firing her. ## Why This Matters for Workers This ruling narrows disability protections. Short-term injuries—even serious ones like broken bones—may not qualify for legal protection against discrimination. Workers recovering from temporary conditions might have limited recourse if fired during their recovery. However, workers with longer-lasting conditions or those perceived as having permanent disabilities retain stronger legal protections against workplace discrimination.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.