On Friday, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed an
employer’s summary judgment dismissing an ADA failure-to-accommodate claim
brought by a current employee. Brumley v.
UPS, No. 18-5453 (6th
Cir. Nov. 30, 2018). The plaintiff could not show that her employer
had failed to engage in the ADA accommodation process when she had voluntarily abandoned
the interactive process and instead convinced her physician to lift her medical
restrictions so that she could return to her former position. The plaintiff could not satisfy her burden of
proof by pointing to her supervisor’s refusal to immediately reinstate her when
she submitted permanent medical restrictions because the “ ADA does not
obligate employers to make on-the-spot accommodations of the employee’s
choosing . . . . An employer’s refusal to provide an accommodation to the
position of the employee’s choice immediately upon the employee’s request is
not, in and of itself, a failure to accommodate under the ADA.” The plaintiff
also could not prove that she had been coerced to abandon the process by her
supervisor’s initial refusal because (1) she had later admitted during workers compensation
proceedings that the supervisor had told her that the employer attempted to
accommodate permanent restrictions and (2) she been contacted about the interactive
process within two weeks and told that her employer would attempt to find her
another position within her medical restrictions.
According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff employee
suffered a work-related injury and on July 29 her doctor medically restricted
her from lifting over 30 pounds, which was apparently an essential job
requirement for a sorter. Her supervisor
refused to reinstate her with these permanent medical restrictions and the
employer commenced the interactive process in mid-August by requesting
additional medical information after she filed a grievance with her union. After she delayed a month in providing the
requested information and the employer delayed a month in scheduling a face-to-face
meeting, she ultimately withdrew her accommodation request in mid-October when
the employer indicated that it would try to transfer into another position. Instead, she convinced her physician at the
end of October to remove her medical restrictions and she returned to her
former position as a sorter by November.
Even though she had been reinstated, she filed the lawsuit
challenging the employer’s refusal to reinstate her to her former position
while she had permanent lifting restrictions imposed by her physician.
NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of
recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not
apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to
different results. Information here can be changed or amended without
notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If
you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or
retain an employment attorney.
