The ADA requires that employers provide reasonable accommodations to qualified employees with disabilities so the employee can continue to perform the essential functions of their job. To be entitled to the ADA’s protection, employees must provide sufficient notice to their employer of the need for an accommodation, though employers should be aware that employees are not required to use any “magic words” in making their request. Once on notice, an employer has an obligation to engage the employee (the interactive process) to determine whether together they can find an effective accommodation. The two cases highlighted below show the radical differences in how an employer acted in the face of a possible accommodation request and demonstrate how NOT to act when an employee discloses a medical condition that may need accommodation.
Altruism is Not a Defense to Disability Discrimination
A car dealership in Sacramento, California is learning the hard way that even if well-intentioned, terminating an employee with a disability so that she can “focus on her health” is not a good idea. The employee in this case, Aryan Rahimi, was a title clerk working for an automotive group. According to the complaint, approximately two months after Ms. Rahimi was hired, on October 12, 2018, she was hospitalized for extreme abdominal pain. Ultimately, Ms. Rahimi was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, but her physician cleared her to return to work on November 1. Even though Ms. Rahimi’s physician cleared her for work, unprompted, her employer decided that because Ms. Rahimi’s condition was worse than anticipated there was “no way” she would be able to return to work on November 1. On October 31, 2018, the group terminated Ms. Rahimi, urging her to contact them when she was ready to return to work, and suggesting that she “focus on her health.”
While encouraging Ms. Rahimi to focus on her health may have been well-intentioned, Ms. Rahimi did not request leave beyond her return-to-work date of November 1, and the employer’s attempt to be kind did not shield them from liability under the ADA. The EEOC sued the employer alleging that the group discriminated against Ms. Rahimi either because of her real or perceived disability. The group agreed to pay Ms. Rahimi $150,000 in lost wages and emotional distress damages.
A Failure to Act Leads to a Failure to Accommodate Claim
Contrast the employer’s rush to conclude that an employee could not or should not work at all, with a recent case in Minnesota where an employee, Beth Layeux, brought suit alleging her employer, Dedicated Logistics Services (“DLS”), failed to accommodate her disability. After initially performing her job well, Ms. Layeux began to have attendance problems and disclosed to her supervisor that she had anxiety and depression. To no avail, Ms. Layeux attempted to meet HR multiple times to explain the root cause for her excessive tardiness. Then, after arriving to work six minutes late one day prior to her scheduled meeting with HR, DLS terminated her employment.
In this case, the court concluded that even though Ms. Layeux did not explicitly request an accommodation, there was enough evidence in the record to support a reasonable inference that DLS knew of Ms. Layeux’s disability and her need for an accommodation but failed to take steps to address these issues with her. Once Ms. Layeux’s supervisor knew that her attendance issues may have been caused by an underlying medical issue, DLS should have met with her to discuss her medical condition and whether an accommodation would have helped her arrive on time and do her job effectively.
Bottom Line
Both cases provide an example of how important it is for employers, once on notice of an employee’s medical issue, to engage with the employee and work together to find an appropriate accommodation. The automotive group did not meet the requirements of the ADA because it made assumptions about the employee’s ability to work once a medical issue had been disclosed. DLS failed because the supervisor (and arguably others) failed to take action once it became clear that the employee was struggling at work because of her self-disclosed mental health challenges. Both cases illustrate that employers should resist the temptation to assume they know what accommodation might be best or to simply ignore the situation. The solution is easy – when an employee discloses a medical condition, employers should simply say, “How can we help?”