A federal court has ruled that an employer failed to accommodate an employee after she submitted a doctor’s note imposing significant restrictions and stating that it was unlikely she would ever be able to perform the essential functions of her job.
After completing her Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave for a back injury, Cynthia Kottke submitted medical paperwork restricting her from lifting more than 10 pounds, or from squatting or standing for long periods. The paperwork stated, however, that she could perform the essential functions of the job if she was permitted intermittent periods of sitting. Her employer, national pet supply retailer PetSmart, granted this request and Kottke returned to work.
Some weeks later, Kottke submitted a note from a different doctor that added more restrictions and stated that it was unlikely that Kottke’s medical condition would ever improve. Based on this discouraging report, PetSmart terminated Kottke’s employment.
Two Letters Should Be Read as One
Kottke sued in federal court under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), contending that the company unlawfully refused to accommodate her and discriminated against her based on her disability. PetSmart denied the claims and sought immediate dismissal on the grounds that they were entitled to rely on the last doctor’s letter in concluding that Kottke would never be able to perform the essential functions of her job. As such, she was not a qualified disabled person and was not afforded protection under the ADA.
The judge disagreed, noting first that the second letter came from a different medical provider and that it did not indicate that the previous letter was no longer valid or that the previous restrictions had been changed. Moreover, the second letter did not in any way indicate that there were no accommodations reasonably available that might work for Kottke. Therefore, the company should have sought to clarify Kottke’s status in relation to the two letters and determined whether she still might be seeking some sort of accommodation. The judge wrote:
PetSmart’s layperson understanding of the medical information contained in the [second letter] and the meaning of the letter was not sufficient to justify the summary termination of the interactive process. PetSmart thus failed to complete its obligation to engage in the interactive process with Kottke.
As a result, the judge declined PetSmart’s motion to dismiss the claim.
Bottom Line
It is important to remember that was just a decision on a motion for early dismissal, and the judge may simply have been reluctant to decide the case without hearing all of the evidence.
Still, this is a troubling result since it is difficult to imagine how an employer should be expected to accommodate a permanent condition that renders her unable to perform the essential functions of her job. If that is the case, what is the point of engaging in the interactive process?
Perhaps the real takeaway is that no matter how certain the employer might be that no accommodation is possible, it is still best to go through the interactive process and document that everything that could have been done was in fact done. It may feel like just going through the motions but as we saw in this case, it could actually help in the case of a motion to dismiss.