The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Requires Disability Accommodations for Obtaining Previously Inaccessible Privileges; Not for “Personal Reasons.”

Ashley Graves, Associate

On June 4, 2024, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Eighth Circuit” or “Court”) issued its ruling in Howard v. City of Sedalia where it held that employers need not accommodate employees if the accommodation would also assist a disabled employee off the clock as well.[1]  Instead, disabled employees seeking an accommodation must show, at least in this specific context, that the accommodation would allow them to obtain previously inaccessible privileges or benefits of employment similarly enjoyed by non-disabled employees.

 Case Background – Howard v. City of Sedalia

Plaintiff Samantha Howard (“Howard”) was a pharmacist for the City of Sedalia (“employer”) who suffered from Type I diabetes with hypoglycemic unawareness, which prevented her from knowing when her blood sugar would drop to dangerously low levels.  As an accommodation, her supervisor allowed her to keep food and drink while working alone.  In June 2020, Howard discovered a service dog--that could detect an impending drop in her blood sugar levels--would be available for her in August.  She then told her manager that for training purposes, the dog needed to constantly be by her side for six months but clarified that she would not need the dog to work with her after this period.  The employer rejected her request for safety reasons, but agreed to work with Howard on finding an alternative accommodation.  Howard rejected the employer’s proposal and ultimately resigned.

Howard sued her former employer alleging that its failure to provide an accommodation violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”)[2] and a jury found in Howard’s favor, awarding her almost $130,000.00 in damages.  The employer appealed. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)’s definition of “reasonable accommodation,” includes, among other things, providing modifications or adjustments to allow an employee or applicant to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment as enjoyed by non-disabled employees or applicants.

The employer relied upon the EEOC’s interpretive guidance which provides that employers are not required to provide accommodations when the adjustment or modification “assists the individual throughout his or her daily activities, on and off the job,” since that would be considered a personal item.[3]  Thus, for example, an employer would not be obligated to provide an employee with a prosthetic limb, glasses, or a wheelchair, nor would an employer have to provide “any amenity or convenience that is not job-related . . . that is not provided to employees without disabilities.”  Howard v. City of Sedalia, ---F.4th----, 2024 WL 2823315, No. 23-1068, at *2 (8th Cir. June 4, 2024).

 The Holding in Howard

The Eighth Circuit held that Howard failed to sufficiently establish her claim since she merely argued that a service dog would enhance her ability to do her job, which the Court considered to be a job performance argument that did not establish that having a service dog would allow her to enjoy previously denied benefits or privileges of her employment.  The Court found that Howard’s requested accommodation would provide her with the same assistance the service dog provided away from work, and was therefore not a cognizable benefit or privilege of employment.

 Key Takeaways

Though the Howard decision is not binding on Tenth Circuit courts, courts within this Circuit will likely consider the overall holding of the case when looking at failure to accommodate claims.  Howard provides employers guidance that an employee is not entitled to receive an accommodation that would also assist their personal needs beyond the workplace.  This is especially true when the employee has demonstrated that they are able to successfully perform the essential functions of their job without the accommodation.  As always, Campbell Litigation remains ready to assist employers in identifying when an accommodation must be provided to a disabled employee.    

[1]---F.4th----, 2024 WL 2823315, No. 23-1068, at *1 (8th Cir. June 4, 2024).

[2]42 U.S.C. § 12112(a)

[3]29 C.F.R. § 1630