“Reasonable Accommodation” under the ADA does not require employer accommodation for problems unrelated to the job and does not excuse employee from essential job functions.
By Erik Cansler
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals found that an employer had no obligation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to accommodate a disabled employee’s problem getting to work because the issue was outside the workplace and unrelated to her essential job functions.[1]
The employee, a hospital dietician, commuted by car 60 miles each way.[2] Then she became legally blind and could no longer drive herself to work, or even guarantee when she could get there.[3] Employer and employee tried to manage the situation, but the hospital needed her onsite on a predictable schedule.[4] Her job performance deteriorated and eventually she was fired.[5] She filed suit for disability discrimination, asserting the hospital had an obligation to accommodate her condition with a more flexible schedule.
The trial court granted judgment in favor of the employer, however, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed.[6] Under the ADA, the employee bears the burden of showing her ability, with or without reasonable accommodation, to perform the essential functions of her job; the employer must show that a particular job function, such as being onsite, is essential. Here, the employer demonstrated the importance of the employee being at the hospital on a set, predictable schedule at least four hours a day to ensure quality patient care.[7]
In the courts’ eyes, an employer does not have to relieve an employee of one of her essential job functions in order to accommodate her under the ADA.[8] This is particularly so when, as in this case, the issue was unrelated to plaintiff’s essential job and was outside the workplace. The Tenth Circuit concluded, “[a]lthough the ADA places obligations on an employer … to accommodate disabled employees, this obligation is not absolute.”[9]
Takeaway
An employer’s duty of reasonable accommodation under the ADA has its limits. With more employees working from home, it is important for an employer to know whether it is responsible for modifying home-office work circumstances for disability compliance. Because every case is different, you should seek advice from the experienced employment-defense counsel at Campbell Litigation. Call them today at 303-536-1833.
[1]Unrein v. PHC-Fort Morgan, Inc., 993 F.3d 873, 879 (10th Cir., 2021).
[2] Id. at 874–75.
[3] Id. at 875.
[4] When she was at work her disability caused no issues, in large part because the hospital bought magnifying equipment for her. Id. at 875.
[5] Id. at 876.
[6] Id. at 874.
[7] Id.
[8] Id. at 878.
[9] Id.