Tag Archives: accommodation

January 14, 2013

ADA Reasonable Accommodations Require an Interactive Proces

by Mark B. Wiletsky

Although some say talk is cheap, that saying does not apply when evaluating an employee’s request for a job accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).  Instead, it is important to engage in an open discussion with the disabled employee; failing to do so can easily land your organization in court.  A Texas school district recently learned that lesson when a federal judge ruled that discharging a disabled classroom aide without engaging in a good faith interactive process regarding reasonable accommodations could result in liability for the district for a violation of the ADA.  Nelson v. Hitchcock Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 3:11-CV-00311 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 21, 2012).

Disabled employee needed accommodation after exhausting FMLA leave.  Iris Nelson had worked for the Hitchcock Independent School District (“District”) as a teacher’s aide for the Head Start program since 1996.  In February 2009, Nelson learned she needed to have knee replacement surgery on both knees due to severe bilateral knee arthritis.  Nelson soon took leave covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) for surgery on her right knee.  In August 2009, shortly before the new school year was to begin, Nelson met with the District’s payroll and benefits supervisor, Theresa Fails, to request another two-and-one-half months off for surgery on her left knee.  Fails informed her that she had exhausted her FMLA leave and would not be eligible for additional leave until the following year. 

Nelson claims that she told Fails that she would work using a cane or a walker until she became eligible for more leave but Fails allegedly responded that she could not use walking aids.  Nelson also stated that she would just have to take pain pills, a suggestion Fails supposedly refused as well.  After the meeting, Fails notified the District’s interim Head Start director and the school superintendent of the conversation and recommended that until a doctor’s note could be obtained and a decision made, Nelson should not be allowed to return to work.

Without hearing anything more on her accommodation request, Nelson returned to work on August 17, 2009 and filed a form requesting leave which would begin on August 20, 2009.  Nelson did not receive a response to her leave request and unilaterally took off to have her surgery on August 23, 2009.  On August 25, 2009, the District’s superintendent sent Nelson a letter denying her leave request, noting that she had exhausted her FMLA entitlement.  Six days later, the superintendent sent Nelson a notice of termination, informing her that her “employment with Hitchcock ISD has been terminated for being unable to perform the essential functions of your job.”  Not surprisingly, Nelson sued, claiming that the District violated the ADA when it terminated her instead of accommodating her disability. 

Court finds evidence that District failed to engage in ADA-required interactive process.  The Court concluded that Nelson’s ADA claim could proceed to trial as Nelson presented sufficient evidence that the District never engaged in the communication and good faith interactive process regarding her accommodation requests that is required under the ADA.  The Court noted that Nelson offered to postpone her surgery had she been allowed the accommodation of using a cane, walker or pain pills.  Although the District argued that it would have been unreasonable to allow Nelson to supervise children while using a walking aid or while under the influence of pain medications, the Court ruled that it need not reach a reasonableness determination because the District had failed to engage in the required interactive process that would have allowed the District to assess the alternate accommodations.  The Court pointed out that had the District discussed the alternatives with Nelson, it could have clarified whether she needed a walking aid or pain pills or both, whether any over-the-counter medications would have been sufficient and what the side effects of any required dosage would be.  Only by engaging in that dialog could the District determine whether Nelson’s requested accommodations would impose an undue hardship on the District. 

Lessons learned.  When faced with an accommodation request, employers should not jump to deciding whether the proposed solution places an undue burden on the company, without first actually talking to the employee and seeking further input from the employee if the proposed solution seems unreasonable or unworkable.  Employers must engage the employee in an interactive dialog to discuss what would allow the employee to perform the essential functions of their job.  Remember, when it comes to reasonable accommodations under the ADA, there is often more than one way to skin a cat.  The first accommodation requested may not be the only, or even the best accommodation for a particular disabled employee.  By including the affected employee in the accommodation process, employers meet their ADA obligation while exploring the options that could allow the employee to stay on the job.  You may not always reach a solution that works for both parties, but as long as you try in good faith—and appropriately document your efforts—it is much harder for the employee to attack your process and actions in a lawsuit down the road.