Skip to main content

Asantewaa v. Robert Wilkie

D. Mass.September 22, 2021No. 1:20-cv-11689
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
Civil Rights: Jobs
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unknown
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Discrimination

Outcome

The appellate court reversed the administrative law judge's finding of disability discrimination, holding that Hibbing Taconite established the 'serious threat' defense based on competent medical advice that applicants with low back anomalies posed a reasonably probable risk of serious harm in the physically demanding laborer position.

What This Ruling Means

**Asantewaa v. Robert Wilkie - Employment Discrimination Case** This case involved a job applicant who claimed disability discrimination after being rejected for a physically demanding laborer position at Hibbing Taconite Company. The applicant had a low back condition, and the company refused to hire them based on medical concerns about their ability to safely perform the job duties. Initially, an administrative law judge ruled in favor of the applicant, finding that the company had discriminated against them. However, an appellate court reversed this decision. The higher court determined that the company had a valid defense for not hiring the applicant. The court found that Hibbing Taconite had relied on legitimate medical advice showing that people with low back problems like the applicant's would face a "reasonably probable risk of serious harm" if they worked in this particular laborer position, which required intense physical demands. **What this means for workers:** This ruling shows that employers can sometimes legally refuse to hire someone with a disability if they can prove, with proper medical evidence, that the person would face serious safety risks in that specific job. However, employers must base such decisions on genuine medical advice, not assumptions or stereotypes about disabilities.

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.