According to the Court’s opinion, the employee suffered from
a chronic skin infection which became worse when he stood for prolonged
periods. After he was transferred to a
new store without desks, he was required to stand for long periods during his
shift. He brought a medical note to his
manager requesting him to sit as needed, as a pregnant co-worker was
permitted. His request was refused
because he was not pregnant. Seven months later, he developed a life-threatening
infection which required daily IV antibiotic treatments. He requested to change his work schedule so
that he would not miss work for his medical treatment, but his manager denied
his request. He then called Human
Resources to ask about his options, but was told that his only option was to
take unpaid leave and then seek back pay.
He never specifically suggested adjusting his schedule. When his doctor told him that he could die
without the medical treatments, he resigned the next day and brought suit.
On appeal,
the Court found that letting the plaintiff sit on a stool during his shift
seemed reasonable since it would alleviate his pain and decrease his risk of
another skin infection. The only argument which the employer raised was that
the accommodation was not necessary because the plaintiff was physically
capable of performing his job, even if he was in pain and risked his
health. In short, it argued that if the
plaintiff “was physically capable of doing his job—no matter the pain
or risk to his health—then it had no obligation to provide him with any accommodation,
reasonable or not.” The Court concluded
that the ADA requires employers to provide disabled employees with similar benefits
as non-disabled employees – i.e., the ability to work without pain. “29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(iii). Here, taking
the evidence in the light most favorable to [the plaintiff], he needed a chair
to work—as other employees do—without great pain and a heightened risk of
infection.”
The employer then argued that the plaintiff never properly
requested an accommodation. Under it
policy, employees are first to submit requests to their supervisors and then to
call the HR Service Center. However,
the plaintiff only asked his supervisor about the stool and not HR or the Service Center. The Court rejected this argument because the
plaintiff testified that he never saw this policy and the employer could not
prove otherwise.
The Court rejected the plaintiff’s claim concerning the
denial of his schedule adjustment to receive necessary medical care because he
quit the ADA interactive process too soon.
The ADA requires both parties to participate in good faith to resolve
the ADA issues. “If the process “fails to lead to [a] reasonable accommodation,”
then “responsibility will lie with the party that caused the breakdown.” In this case, the plaintiff never informed
the employer that its proposal – to take unpaid leave and apply for backpay –
was unacceptable. Instead, he resigned
the next day. Because the plaintiff
caused the ADA process to break down over this request, his claim was denied.
The Court next denied his sex discrimination claim, which
challenged the denial of his stool request when it was provided to a pregnant
employee. The Court found that only
materially adverse employment actions were actionable and the plaintiff had
failed to identify any material adverse changes
in his employment. The employer’s
denial of his request to sit on a stool did not change his working conditions and, therefore, was not
actionable. (I have to wonder how this
argument works when an employee is denied a promotion or a raise or a transfer
. . . . . ).
Finally, the Court rejected the constructive discharge claim
because the denial of his accommodation requests did not render his working
conditions objectively intolerable.
But the denial of an accommodation,
by itself, is not sufficient to prove that an employer constructively
discharged an employee. . . . . And [the plaintiff] points to nothing
else in the record that suggests [his supervisor’s] real
purpose in denying [the plaintiff’s] requests was to force [him] to resign . . . Thus, no reasonable jury could find that
[the employer] intended to force him to quit, and summary judgment was
therefore proper on this
claim too.
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.
