I've blogged before on how reasonable accommodation is the new, big issue under the ADA. On June 5, a 5th Circuit published decision stressed that very point in reversing a summary judgment against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Here's the scoop from the court's opinion in EEOC v. Chevron Phillips Chemical Co.: Lorin Netterville worked for Chevron Phillips Chemical Co. After starting work there, she claimed that a medical condition, chronic fatigue syndrome, from which she believed she had been cured, popped up again. She brought in two notes from her doctor, one of which asked that she be assigned a work location closer to her home (her condition is disabling, and being closer to home would aid her in dealing with it) and the other, a more detailed one, requesting that she be allowed to alternate typing and reading duties and not perform straight typing (she was an admin, her condition caused pain in her hands, and she was therefore to avoid prolonged periods of any one type of work). In the meantime, the employer looked at the medical questionnaire she had completed before assuming her job duties. The company nurse concluded that chronic fatigue syndrome is a blood disorder (it isn't; Netterville brought in information on the nature of the condition and gave it to her boss, but it never found its way to the nurse). The company met with her but did not discuss any reasonable accommodation. Rather, the meeting focused on her failure to check off on the medical questionnaire that she suffered from any blood disorders. The meeting also revolved around her "no" answer to whether she suffered from "excessive fatigue with work or exercise," which she took to mean whether fatigue was caused by or associated directly with work or exercise. She was fired the next day for misrepresenting her medical history. The EEOC sued on her behalf. Here's what's interesting. The 5th Circuit reversed the trial court's summary judgment on all counts, including the count on the employer's failure to engage in the reasonable accommodation process. The 5th Circuit stressed yet again the ping-pong rule and its application to these facts:
- Once an employee makes a request for a reasonable accommodation, the law obligates the employer to engage in an interactive process -- that is, to have a meaningful dialogue with the employee to find the best means for accommodating the disability.
- The court rejected the lower court's reasoning, therefore, that Netterville's request for an accommodation did not trigger the process because she did not identify a different work location closer to her home. She was not required to come up with a solution, only to ask for one.
- Finally, she testified that when she asked her boss for an accommodation, he said "No. We just can't take this. This isn't going to work." And, when she met with her boss and human resources, the inquiry was not on a reasonable accommodation but on her questionnaire.
From all this, the court concluded that Netterville raised a fact issue on the reasonable accommodation count, summary judgment was inappropriate, and the dispute would be up to a jury. Here's the deal: Employers must understand their reasonable accommodation duties, especially now that the ADA amendments make proving a disability so much easier. It is no accident that the 5th Circuit panel decided to write a lengthy opinion and to publish it as precedent. If employers don't, lawyers are going to see something else: summary judgment for employees on the issue of failure to reasonably accommodate. The formula is simple: disability + request to accommodate same + employer "no" = employee summary judgment.
Comments