|
During the past eight years more than 1,000 reported court decisions
have been rendered under Title I of the ADA, creating significant legal trends
in the law's development. Many ADA cases are being resolved on summary
judgments, rather than on the specific nature of various ADA issues, such as
disability status and reasonable accommodation. "For the most part, courts are
narrowing the definition of `disability', imposing stricter criteria for
establishing that a person with a disability is `a qualified individual with a
disability' and are reluctant to find that an accommodation is required" (Chris
Bell).
Court findings on substantial limitations, the disability definition and
reasonable accommodations are addressed below.
Substantial Limitation and Disability Definition
Issues
- A number of issues have been raised in court cases on the questions
of what is a disability and whether an individual with a disability is
"qualified."
- Issues have been raised around the provision which requires a
disability to substantially limit a major life activity, and the provision
which requires employees with such disabilities to perform the essential
function of the job, despite the disabilities.
- Issues stemming from whether a person is "qualified" are (1) "What
are the essential functions of the job?" and (2) "Can the individual perform
the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodations?"
These issues have been at the core of many court rulings.
- Courts are ruling on the "substantial limitation" concept by
determining when symptoms are severe enough to meet this criteria. This issue
impacts people with cancer, psychiatric disabilities, multiple sclerosis, and
other disabilities that have episodic symptoms.
Court Findings
- Several courts have found that there are no per se disabilities,
although the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) position
states "that certain impairments (e.g., HIV) by their nature may be disabling"
(Pritchard v. Southern Co. Service, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 22062 (11th Circuit)
and Paulsen v. Beyond, Inc., No. 95-40107 (5th Circuit, June 18, 1996.)
- Courts have ruled that in order to be considered substantially
limited in working, plaintiffs must be unable to perform across a class of
related jobs, not just in one particular position or situation (Bolton v.
Scrivner, Inc. 36 F.3d 939 (10th Circuit, 1984); Heilweil v. Mount Sinai
Hospital, 32 F. 3d 718 (2nd Circuit, 1994); Byrne v. Board of Education. 979
F.3d 560 (7th Circuit, 1992).
- EEOC takes the position that an individual's disability status must
be determined without regard to mitigating measures such as the impact of
medication or a prosthetic device. A number of courts have adopted this
position but it is not a unanimous federal court position. Increasingly, courts
are evaluating EEOC's interpretations and examining whether an individual is
substantially limited with medication or a prosthetic device. The 6th Circuit
Court of Appeals in Cincinnati supported EEOC's and the U.S. District Court for
Eastern Pennsylvania's position. Because of the differing opinions among
federal courts, the issue is before the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Recent court rulings have determined that the applicant/employee must
be able to perform all essential job functions with or without reasonable
accommodations, and that a job does not have to be restructured to eliminate
essential job functions. In addition, in some cases, regular attendance was
found to be an essential function of most jobs.
Accommodations
Issues
- A number of issues have surfaced in court cases on the question "what
is reasonable accommodation?"
- Issues on the employer's responsibility to continue to meet the
reasonable accommodation needs of employees with disabilities have had much
court attention.
- Issues regarding the employer's responsibility to grant open-ended
scheduling or an indefinite period of leave as reasonable accommodation have
resulted in a mixed reaction from the courts.
- Issues regarding the responsibility of the employer to provide
reassignment and the scope of the reassignment have not resulted in a consensus
from the courts.
Court Findings
- Generally, courts are recognizing that meeting ADA's requirement for
"reasonable accommodation" is a "continuing duty" for employers and does not
end after the first accommodation effort. For example, in Ralph v. Lucent
Technology, BNA 7Ad cases 1, 3, 4, & 5, (1st Circuit 1998), a plaintiff
with psychiatric disabilities originally was accommodated with leave time. Upon
returning to work, the person requested another accommodation in the form of
part-time work for four weeks. He was turned down by management. The 1st
Circuit ruled against the company, stating "making reasonable accommodation is
an ongoing obligation for the employer under the ADA."
- Courts also are rejecting employees with disabilities' requests for
open-ended schedules or indefinite periods of leave. Appellate courts are
beginning to focus on the reasonableness of the particular accommodation
request, vis-a-vis costs and benefits. In addition, courts are reviewing the
employer's total efforts at accommodation to determine sufficiency.
- Courts have determined that unpaid leave may be a form of reasonable
accommodation. However, the granting of requests for indefinite, unanticipated,
and/or unpredictable leave may not be required if it would result in an undue
hardship.
- Some courts are deciding that an employer is not obligated to provide
the best available accommodation as long as he/she provides an accommodation
that is effective.
- EEOC and some federal circuit courts have ruled that reasonable
accommodation includes the employer's obligation to reassign qualified
employees with disabilities unable to perform the essential functions of their
current position, with or without reasonable accommodations, unless the
employer can show an undue hardship. However, the courts are split on this
issue. The 7th Circuit Court (Gile v. United Airlines, 95 F.3d 492, 498 (7th
Circuit 1996) and the 8th (Benson v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 62 F.3d 1108,
1114-15 (8th Circuit 1995) have concurred with the EEOC position. Under Title I
of the ADA, reassignment can be used as a means of accommodating an employee
with a disability when accommodation in the employee's current position is
possible, but difficult, for the employer. The 5th Circuit, in Foreman v.
Babcock & Wilcox., 117 F. 3d 800, 807-09 (5th Circuit, 1997), ruled that if
it is impossible for an employer to accommodate a worker in his or her present
job, then there is no obligation to reassign. The conflicting decisions on this
issue by the courts create the need for the Supreme Court to settle this
issue.
As with any new law, clarification will come from court rulings and U.S.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's policy guidance.
Office of Disability Employment Policy
(202) 376-6200 (V), (202)
376-6205 (TTY), (202) 376-6219 (FAX)
Equal Employment Opportunities Commission:
Technical Assistance:
(800) 669-4000 (V) or (800) 669-6820 (TTY)
Website:
http://www.eeoc.gov
Article by Christopher G. Bell, entitled,"Some Key Trends in Judicial
Decisions: Interpreting Title I of the ADA."
July 1999
|
