2 Stories of Disability Accomodation in the Workplace
The Americans with Disabilities Act states that employers must fulfill a disabled employee’s request for accomodation, so as that request is “reasonable.”
Below I’ve posted an interesting outline of two Massachusetts cases that demonstrate the circumstances that may be considered when an employee requests specific accomodations for his or her disability. At issue in each was whether an employer is required to accommodate a disabled employee by allowing the employee to work at a location other than the workplace preferred by the employer.
The two stories show how and why the two courts reached divergent results. The holding in one case was that an employer violated the law by not allowing an employee to work at her home. And the ruling in the other case was that an employer properly denied an employee’s request that he be allowed to work at a different company facility that was only 15 miles away from the employee’s normal workplace.
The review of the cases sheds light on the fact-based and case-sensitive process by which many of these issues are resolved both personally and legally.
Since this site requires registration and subscription, I’m posting the article here.
Originally published by: Mondaq.com
United States: Recent Massachusetts Cases Illustrate Fact-intensive Process for Determining Whether a Disabled Employee´s Request for Accommodation is Reasonable
20 October 2005
Article by Mr David C. HendersonMost experienced managers already appreciate that, whenever a handicapped or disabled employee requests a workplace accommodation to perform an essential job function, the employer is required to provide the accommodation only when it is reasonable. Sometimes more difficult to understand is that the necessary determination of reasonableness always is dependent on the individual employee’s particular job responsibilities and circumstances as they relate to his or her particular request. Another way of saying this is that the process of determining whether a requested accommodation is reasonable is always going to be “fact-intensive and case-specific.
Two recent Massachusetts cases illustrate this well. At issue in each was whether an employer is required to accommodate a disabled employee by allowing the employee to work at a location other than the workplace preferred by the employer. For reasons explained below, the two courts reached divergent results. The holding in one case was that an employer violated the law by not allowing an employee to work at her home. And the ruling in the other case was that an employer properly denied an employee’s request that he be allowed to work at a different company facility that was only 15 miles away from the employee’s normal workplace. These two cases thus offer to managers broad insights into how courts analyze the employer’s obligations in this area of the law.
The first of these two rulings was on June 10, 2005 in Smith v. Bell Atlantic et al. In Smith, the Massachusetts Appeals Court held that the lower court had properly determined from evidence at trial that the employer had failed to reasonably accommodate a handicapped employee when it refused to allow her to perform a substantial amount of her work at home. The employee suffered from post polio syndrome, was paralyzed in one leg, suffered diminished use of the other leg, and relied on a scooter for mobility. Although she held the position of “second level manager,” the employee testified at trial that her essential job functions were simply to analyze data, generate reports, and serve as a resource for others in the office. Further, she also testified that other second-level managers who were not disabled were allowed to do substantial amounts of their work from home.
On the basis of such evidence (and notwithstanding contrary evidence presented by the employer), the Appeals Court in Smith upheld the lower court’s ruling against the employer, finding that the jury legitimately could have concluded that uninterrupted attendance was not an essential function of this particular employee’s job. According to the Appeals Court, allowing this particular employee to use modern technology (e.g., emails, faxes, etc.) to do substantial amounts of work at home therefore was a reasonable accommodation.
But again, this result in Smith should not be construed as an indication that off-site work arrangements must always be afforded as “accommodations.” Illustrating the “fact-intensive and case specific” analysis that instead is called for by state and federal disability laws is Mulloy v. Acushnet Company, a case decided by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts only ten days after the Appeals Court ruled in favor of the employee in Smith. In Mulloy, the District Court awarded summary judgment to the employer after determining that, in the particular circumstances of that case, the employer violated neither state nor federal disability law when it refused to allow the plaintiff to work full time from an alternative company facility only 15 miles away.
In Mulloy, the plaintiff was a senior electrical engineer who suffered from respiratory ailments allegedly exacerbated by a worksite that, at least in part, was not a “meticulously clean environment.” And as in Smith, the plaintiff in Mulloy claimed that he could acceptably do his job from an off-site location simply by taking advantage of available communications tools (e.g., a webcam). But from the District Court’s standpoint, the similarity ended there between the case before it and Smith (a case explicitly cited in the District Court’s opinion). After analyzing the pertinent job description and duties of its plaintiff, the District Court found more persuasive the employer’s evidence showing that actual physical presence at the worksite was an essential aspect of the particular job at issue. As the District Court noted, “many courts have recognized physical attendance in the workplace is an essential function of most jobs.”
Also notable in Mulloy is that the District Court seemed to take a different procedural approach to determining the weight it would give to certain evidence from the employee. Unlike the Appeals Court in Smith, the District Court ruled in Mulloy that the employee’s own testimony, unsupported by testimony from other employees, could not be sufficient to rebut the employer’s evidence showing that an essential job function involved actually being physically present at the particular worksite. In short, as the District Court stated, it was “reluctant to allow employees to define the essential functions of their positions based solely on their personal viewpoint and experience.” The District Court thus ruled in favor of the employer because “an employer’s judgment regarding the essential functions of a job, though not dispositive, is afforded deference.”
Smith and Mulloy illustrate the continuing complexity in this area of disability law, the fact-intensive and case-specific inquiry always called for when a workplace accommodation is requested, and the importance of obtaining sound legal advice whenever a manager questions how to respond.
This advisory was prepared by David C. Henderson, co-chair of Nutter’s Employment, Labor and Benefits practice group.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.”