It’s a Hard Knock Life for ADA Claimant at the First Circuit

A manager for a Burger King franchise in Puerto Rico who requested a fixed work schedule due to posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) that he developed after being attacked at gunpoint was not a “qualified individual” under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the First Circuit Court of Appeals recently held. Characterizing its opinion in Sepulveda-Vargas v. Caribbean Restaurants, LLC, as a “lesson straight out of the school of hard knocks,” the Court found that being able to work rotating shifts was an essential function of the manager’s job and his inability to do so barred his failure to accommodate claim.

The manager was attacked in 2011 while attempting to make a bank deposit on behalf of his employer, Caribbean. He suffered from PTSD and depression after the attack and, in response to these diagnoses, requested to work a fixed schedule. Although Caribbean initially granted the request, it later told the manager that he would have to go back to rotating shifts. The manager resigned in 2013 and then sued Caribbean, claiming that they failed to accommodate his disability by not permanently providing him with a fixed schedule. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Caribbean and the manager appealed.

The issue on appeal was whether, in light of the manager’s request to work a fixed schedule, he was still qualified to perform the essential job functions that Caribbean required of its managers. The First Circuit acknowledged that identifying essential job functions is a fact-specific exercise, but found there was no dispute in this case that the ability to work rotating shifts was an essential function of the manager’s job. Caribbean explained, and the manager conceded, that rotating shifts were necessary for the equal distribution of work among managers, and the manager further admitted during his deposition that rotating shifts was a responsibility he shared in common with other managers during his employment with Caribbean. The Court also pointed to Caribbean’s hiring materials, including the manager’s signed job application, which made clear that managerial employees had to be able to work different shifts.

Although the manager pointed out that Caribbean had initially granted his request for a fixed schedule, the Court found that Caribbean’s willingness to do so on a temporary basis was not a concession that rotating shifts was a non-essential function. Consistent with decisions from other federal courts, the Court found that to conclude otherwise would unfairly punish employers for doing more than the ADA requires.

Third Circuit Court Offers Employers Insight into FMLA and ADA

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently waded into the waters of the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), finding that an employer did not violate the FMLA or ADA where it legitimately believed an employee was misusing FMLA leave, and terminated the employee as a result.

In this case, Capps v. Mondelez Global, LLC, the employee had a medical condition that caused arthritis in his hips. The employee had hip replacement surgery and afterwards he was approved for intermittent FMLA leave to address residual pain and occasional flare-ups.  After the employee returned from one of his intermittent leaves, the employer discovered through an anonymous source that the employee had been convicted for DUI on one of the days that he had been out on leave. The employer terminated the employee for violating its dishonesty policy after he failed to provide sufficient documentation supporting his FMLA leave.

The employee sued claiming violations of the FMLA and ADA. As for the employee’s FMLA retaliation claim, the court found that the claim failed because the employer was able to establish that it terminated the employee for misusing his FMLA leave and for being dishonest about it, and because the employee could offer no evidence to suggest that the employer did not honestly hold that belief.  The court also noted that there was no evidence showing that the employee had ever been denied intermittent FMLA prior to the employer’s discovery of his DUI conviction, nor was there any evidence of discriminatory animus on the part of the employer prior to that time. As for the employee’s FMLA interference claim, the court found that claim failed as well where there was no evidence showing that FMLA benefits had actually been withheld from the employee.

Turning to the ADA, the employee argued that his request for intermittent FMLA leave was protected by the ADA and that his employer failed to accommodate his disability.  The court acknowledged that, under some circumstances, a request for FMLA leave may also qualify as a request for a reasonable accommodation. However, in this case, the court found that even if the employee’s request for intermittent FMLA leave could be construed as a request for a reasonable accommodation, there was still no evidence to suggest that he was denied requested leave at any point.

So what insights does this case offer to employers?  

First, it highlights the importance of distinguishing between an employee’s request and utilization of FMLA leave, and an employee’s conduct or activities while on leave.  An employee clearly may not be disciplined for the former, but this case confirms that the FMLA does not provide an absolute shield for the latter, particularly where misuse of FMLA leave is concerned. Second, the decision highlights the interplay between the FMLA and the ADA and underscores the importance of evaluating leave requests individually and in context.

Federal Court Finds Employee’s Explanation for Failed Drug Test Insufficient to Provide Notice of a Disability

Most employers are well aware that, under state and federal disability laws, an employee with a disability is entitled to reasonable accommodations in the workplace.  What can sometimes be less clear for employers is determining at what point the obligation to provide a reasonable accommodation arises.  Not surprisingly, the answer often depends on the facts.

As a case in point, a federal district court recently held that an employee’s disclosure that he was taking oxycodone for his back pain was not sufficient to put the employer on notice that he had a disability or that he required an accommodation.  Angel v. Lisbon Valley Mining Co., LLC (D. Utah, Nov. 23, 2015).  The employee disclosed that he was taking oxycodone after he had failed a drug test. Although the employee told human resources that the medication was for a back impairment and provided them a copy of his prescription along with a physician’s note, the court found neither the prescription nor the doctor’s note was sufficient to notify the employer that he was claiming a disability or asking for an accommodation.  In this case, the court held that the employer’s mere awareness of the employee’s physical condition (i.e. back pain) was insufficient to show that it was aware of an alleged disability or a request for accommodation.

Although it is difficult to generalize from the facts of a particular case, the outcome in Angel nonetheless confirms that the duty to provide a reasonable accommodation is triggered only after an employee has put the employer on notice of a disability and a desire for an accommodation. Although an employee’s accommodation request can be in “plain English” and does not need to use any special words, it must still be sufficient to notify the employer that the employee needs a modification at work and that the modification is related to a medical condition.

Recent Decision Provides Case Study on Managing Suspected Alcohol Impairment

If an employer suspects that an employee may be coping with a substance abuse issue, such as alcoholism, what steps can it take to ensure that the employee is not coming to work impaired?  A recent federal court case explored this issue and found that an employer acted within the scope of the law when it required an employee to undergo a breathalyzer test for alcohol and, based on the results of that test, terminated the employee from his safety-sensitive position.

The employee in the case, Foos v. Taghleef Industries, worked with machinery that required him to follow several safety protocols to ensure his own safety and that of others.  During his employment, the employee went out on a number of FMLA-covered leaves.  When requesting to return from his last leave, his physician submitted a return to work note that identified his diagnosis as “acute alcoholic pancreatitis.”  Upon receiving the physician’s certification, a health and wellness manager became concerned that the employee might be consuming alcohol at work.  The concern was based on the employee’s history of pancreatitis (which the employer did not know was related to alcohol prior to the doctor’s certification), as well as information that the employee had been hurt in a bar fight (which resulted in one of the employee’s previous FMLA-covered leaves).  Based on these concerns in light of the employee’s safety-sensitive position, the company concluded that it had reasonable grounds to believe that the employee was coming to work impaired.  When the employee returned from work, the company therefore sent him to the hospital for a breathalyzer test.  The company then terminated the employee after his test came back positive.

Although the employee claimed that the alcohol test was unlawful under the ADA, the court concluded that, under these facts, it was reasonable for the company to inquire into whether the employee was able to perform his job.  The alcohol test was therefore “consistent with business necessity.”  Also bolstering the employer’s case was that it applied the same procedures any other time it suspected an employee was returning to work in an impaired condition.  In other words, there was no evidence that the company singled out this employee for treatment that was distinguishable from other employees.

Although this decision certainly provides some guidance as to the steps an employer can take to ensure an employee is not coming to work impaired, it is just that: a guidepost.  Each case – and each employee – must obviously be analyzed on an individual basis.

When Is Telecommuting a Reasonable Accommodation Under the ADA?

Earlier this month, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals shared its perspective on this question and held that telecommuting was not a reasonable accommodation for an employee where her essential job duties required regular and frequent in-person contact with suppliers and customers.  In some respects, the court’s conclusion that telecommuting may not be appropriate for jobs requiring regular physical attendance is rather unremarkable.  As the use of telecommuting rises, however, the decision’s common-sense approach to the issue is likely to have a lasting impact.

The employee in the case was a resale buyer who had a severe case of irritable bowel syndrome, which lasted for several years and caused her to be increasingly absent as the years progressed.  Her employer, Ford Motor Company, worked with her during that time to accommodate her condition, including several attempts to accommodate a telecommuting schedule.  Over time, however, her job performance continued to deteriorate.  At one point, she requested to telecommute four days per week.  Ford declined the request but offered other accommodations, including relocating her desk closer to a bathroom.  The employee did not accept the alternative accommodations and Ford later terminated her.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission subsequently sued Ford, arguing that the employee’s request for a four-day telecommuting schedule was a reasonable accommodation and that Ford’s denial of the request violated the ADA.  The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. Relying on a “common-sense” approach, the court focused on the highly interactive nature of the employee’s position and found that regular, in-person attendance was an essential function of her job. Although the ADA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified employees with disabilities, the court found that the employee in this case was not “qualified” where she could not consistently be on site to perform her job.  Providing a telecommuting accommodation would not have been reasonable because it would not have allowed her to perform the essential interactive duties of her job.

The Sixth Circuit’s decision does not go so far as to hold that telecommuting can never qualify as a reasonable accommodation.  For positions that do not require a high degree of interaction with customers or staff, or that can be performed effectively from a remote location through the use of technology, telecommuting very well may offer a viable accommodation.  Employers should therefore continue to engage with employees requesting telecommuting as an accommodation to determine whether, under the particular facts, the request can reasonably be accommodated.

Does a Request for Disability Benefits Qualify as a Request for an Accommodation of Leave Under the ADA?

Last month, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals answered this question in the negative and found that an employee’s request for long-term disability benefits did not amount to a request for a reasonable accommodation in the form of leave.  As a result, the Sixth Circuit held that the employee’s failure-to-accommodate claim under the ADA failed where he could not point to any other evidence showing that he actually requested leave as a reasonable accommodation.

The employee in this case, Judge v. Landscape Forms, Inc., injured his arm while working at home.  The injury required surgery and the employee, Judge, was told by his doctor that the recovery time would be approximately four to six months.  In May 2011, Judge requested and was approved for FMLA leave until early August 2011.   During his leave, he also applied and was approved for long-term disability benefits beginning in July 2011.

Shortly before he was due to return to work, Judge informed Landscape Forms that he could not yet use his arm and that he would need six weeks of therapy.  He provided Landscape Forms a set of work restrictions, but he did not follow up or return to work after Landscape Forms asked for more clarification regarding the restrictions.  In late September 2011, Landscape Forms contacted Judge seeking information on his work restrictions.  Judge responded by faxing a note from his doctor with new work restrictions, but the note did not include any information as to Judge’s estimated date of recovery.  After receiving the doctor’s note, Landscape Forms terminated Judge on the grounds that it needed to maintain staffing levels and could not leave his position open indefinitely.   Judge was subsequently cleared to return to work without restrictions in November 2011.

Judge claimed that Landscape Forms discriminated against him and failed to accommodate his disability by not granting him leave until mid-November 2011.  The key issue for the Sixth Circuit was whether Judge actually requested leave as an accommodation and, if he did, whether the request was reasonable.  The court acknowledged that there is no “bright-line” test to determine when an employee’s request is sufficiently clear to qualify as a request for an accommodation.  However, on the facts of this case, the court found there was no evidence that Judge had ever made any statement that could be construed as a request for leave until mid-November 2011.  Although Judge argued that his request for long-term disability benefits constituted a request for an accommodation of leave, the Sixth Circuit disagreed.  Because Judge’s disability claim was processed through a third-party, which did not provide any information to Landscape Forms about the claim other than its approval, the Sixth Circuit found the request was insufficient to put Landscape Forms on notice that he was requesting leave as a reasonable accommodation or that he was seeking leave until mid-November 2011.

Given its finding that Judge never actually asked for additional leave as an accommodation, the Sixth Circuit did not reach the issue of whether the request would have been reasonable if properly made.  Had it reached this issue, the court might have had an opportunity, like the Tenth Circuit’s recent decision in Hwang v. Kansas State University, to provide additional commentary on when a request for additional leave is reasonable under the ADA, and when it is not.  Obviously, this additional commentary will have to wait for another occasion.

ADA: Testing and Transfer Accommodations

In Montemerlo v. Goffstown School District No. 2013 DNH 134 (DNH decided October 4, 2013) the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire clarified certain burdens imposed on the employee and employer when addressing multiple accommodations under the ADA.  The Court’s opinion is a reminder of the importance of engaging in the interactive process and highlights the importance of written job descriptions.
 
A school teacher who requested an accommodation to test her blood during the work day filed suit claiming she was denied a reasonable accommodation.  The Court rejected that claim finding that the District had agreed to provide her with coverage when she needed to leave the class room to test.  The Court found it unreasonable that the teacher never requested coverage but filed suit because she wanted to test her blood in her classroom.

The teacher also requested a transfer to an open position that she believed was more consistent with her disabilities.  The District did not respond to the transfer request.  The Court declined to grant summary judgment for the District.  The Court began the analysis by noting that “a disabled employee does not have a right to a transfer to a new position simply because she is disabled [, but the] request to transfer must in fact address the disabilities that prompt the request.”  The District asserted the request for a transfer to a new position was not a request for accommodation because it had provided a reasonable accommodation (the coverage for blood testing), but the Court held “the duty to provide a reasonable accommodation is a continuing one, however, and not exhausted by one effort.”  Because the District failed to respond to the transfer request and thus did not engage in the required interactive process, the District could not show it was entitled to judgment on that claim.  The District also argued that the letter requesting the transfer was not specific and did not provide the required notice.  The Court rejected this argument finding that the issue should be examined in light of the District’s long-standing awareness of the teacher’s disabilities.

This case serves as a reminder that an employee’s request for accommodation under the ADA is sufficient if it directly and specifically gives notice of the need for accommodation and explains how the request is linked to a disability.  The Court will inquire whether the employer knew or reasonably should have known that the reason for the employee’s request was her disability; the employer cannot make its decision by narrowly considering the employee’s request as the Court will examine the totality of the employer’s knowledge.

A written job description identifying the essential functions of the position are important to the analysis of what reasonable accommodations are available, and the absence of a job description may make it more difficult on the employer to determine how to respond to an accommodation request.  It is the employee’s burden to show that she is a qualified individual, which demands the employee establish she possesses the requisite skills, experience, education and other job related requirements for the position and that she is able to perform the essential functions for the job with or without reasonable accommodations.  A job description will make the essential functions clear and will guide the employer’s decision.