According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff began a
medical leave on August 9, 2009 for a shoulder injury she incurred on the job
after she had already exhausted her vacation and sick leave days. Each time she sought an extension of her medical
leave, the Board reminded her about the two-year limit. When the plaintiff learned that the School
viewed her as ineligible to return to work, she sent a letter in March 2012
indicating that she planned to return to work on March 26, but required a
reasonable accommodation. Four days later, the School notified her that she was
being terminated according to the two-year rule. Both the EEOC and OCRC found no probable
cause of discrimination.
The Court found the rule to be reasonable and more generous
than the one-year policy utilized by many employers. It even cited a case
noting that few medical leaves longer than 18 months would be reasonable. The plaintiff claimed that the rule was
pretextual because the School had approved two of her extensions after the
expiration of the two year period and had done so for 18 other employees as
well. The School explained that those extensions had
been a mistake based on a misunderstanding of Ohio workers compensation and that
all of those employees were similarly terminated when the School’s misunderstanding
was corrected.
The plaintiff also argued that the lack of advance notice of
her termination reflected pretext.
However, the Court found that she was not entitled to prior notice of
her termination and, in any event, had received it when she was reminded about
the rule with each extension she received.
Importantly, the Court rejected her failure-to-accommodate
claim because she did not seek any reasonable accommodations within the
two-year period. The School was not
required to exempt her from the two-year rule in order to grant a reasonable
accommodation or as an accommodation.
The Court also rejected her challenge the School’s no-restrictions
return-to-work policy because she never attempted to return with restrictions
during the two-year period and because the School’s letters to her indicated
that they would consider permitting her to return with restrictions.
Finally, the Court rejected the plaintiff’s attack on the
School’s light duty program. Employees
with temporary injuries were assigned light duty with the aim of returning to
full duty within 90 days. Employees with
permanent injuries were required to work with the Employee Relations
Department. The Court concluded that
this did not violate the ADA.
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.
