Shy Bladder Equals Bold Plaintiff

Mr. Smith "goes" to court...

by Sean Carter
06/01/04

As the economy begins to turn around, some economics are wondering why job growth still lags behind productivity. I think I know the answer. It’s not that employers can’t afford to hire new workers; it’s simply that they are scared to hire new workers. After all, hiring a new employee can be as risky as starring in an adult movie in California; only far less exciting.

The sad truth is that employees are prone to sue the hand that pays them. And our wacky employment laws actually encourage these lawsuits.

Take, for instance, the case filed in Georgia last week against Caterpillar, the industrial equipment maker. Last November, Tom Smith, a 44-year-old Caterpillar employee, was asked to provide a urine sample as part of the company’s random drug testing policy. However, Smith was unable to urinate within the three-hour period allowed by the company and was subsequently fired.

In response, Smith filed a lawsuit against Caterpillar. He claims that his inability to urinate is the result of paruresis, more commonly known as shy bladder syndrome. In short, Smith claims that he’s simply too shy to “go” in public. As a result of this shyness, Caterpillar’s termination of his employment was in violation of … you guessed it … the Americans with Disability Act.

In support of Smith’s claim, the American Psychiatric Association does recognize paruresis as a social phobia. However, this isn’t saying much. The APA is extremely liberal in its recognition of all types of disorders. I wouldn’t be surprised if the APA also recognizes cooties as a social phobia.

According to the International Paruresis Association’s website, “about seven percent (7%) of the public, or 17 million people, may suffer from this social anxiety disorder.” Sadly, none of these people ever seem to go to professional sporting events. If they did, then perhaps the lines to the restroom wouldn’t be so long at the Lakers games.

However, assuming that this is a “real” disorder, the larger question is should Caterpillar be liable for wrongful termination? Sadly, the answer to this question is likely “yes.”

Under the ADA, employers must make “reasonable accommodations” for their disabled employees. Smith argues that a reasonable accommodation would have been for Caterpillar to test him using a hair or blood sample.

And given the courts’ usual legal analysis of these cases, Smith has a strong case. For Caterpillar to be able to justify not using hair and blood samples, it must prove that doing so would create an “undue hardship” for the company. For a company that had revenues of $6.5 billion in the first quarter alone, this is going to be harder than my wife’s pancakes.

As you can see, the ADA places large employers at a disadvantage. So long as the employee can claim a syndrome of some sort, he’s in luck. While this may be good news to the person with a “shy bladder,” “fickle arteries,” or “obstinate scalp,” it’s bad news for the millions of Americans who are still out of work. After all, given our current legal climate, the employer looking to hire new lawsuits (oops, I mean “employees”) must be on drugs herself.

________________________________

Sean is a practicing attorney who writes a weekly humor column on current legal events called "Lawpsided." Lawpsided pieces appear in a growing number of general circulation papers across the country, including The Los Angeles Times. Moreover, his musings on the law appear on nationally recognized websites, such as jewishworldreview.com, findlaw.com, newsmax.com and etherzone.com, and legal publications, such as The National Law Journal and The Los Angeles Daily Journal. Lastly, he is a regular contributor to national magazines like Razor and Tirade. If you would be interested in publishing this piece or seeing other samples of his work, please feel free to contact him by e-mail, by phone at (626) 786-2095, or through his website at:

www.lawpsided.com