Under a recent United States 8th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, it was held that an employer can terminate an employee who is medically restricted from performing essential functions of her job even though the employee claimed that she could still perform the restricted tasks.

In Alexander v. The Northland Inn, a hotel housekeeper claimed that her employer violated the American's with Disabilities Act when they terminated her. In this case, the employee was given permanent restrictions due to a back injury from a non-work related accident. The employer, in determining if the employee was still able to perform the essential functions of her job, sent the employee's doctor a letter outlining the necessary tasks involved in the employee's job. The employee's doctor responded that vacuuming would fall outside of the employee's restrictions. As a result of the doctor's report, the employer notified the employee that she was terminated because vacuuming was an essential function of the job. The employee responded by stating that she could, in fact, vacuum even though her doctor had prohibited that task.

The Court of Appeals held that under the Americans with Disabilities Act, an employer can terminate an employee who can not perform essential functions of the job with or without a reasonable accommodation. The Court agreed that vacuuming, for a housekeeper, is an essential function of the job and that even though the employee claimed she could still vacuum, the employer was justified in firing the employee based on her doctor's statement that she could not vacuum within her restrictions. The court held that when an employer receives clear, unambiguous restrictions from a doctor, the employee's belief or opinion that she can do the restricted functions is simply irrelevant.