Correctional Officer Requiring Unplanned Breaks Loses ADA Claim

Takeaway: The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Amendments Act of 2008 made it easier for an employee to show that they are a qualified individual entitled to the protection of the ADA. But sometimes, the limitations created by an employee’s medical condition are so severe that the employee cannot perform the essential functions of a position, particularly in public safety, with or without reasonable accommodations. In such circumstances, the ADA does not apply.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a decision granting summary judgment against the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claim of a former correctional officer of Cook County, Ill., Department of Corrections (DOC). The court found that the plaintiff, who was unable to stand for long periods of time and needed frequent breaks, was not a qualified individual with a disability.

The DOC hired the plaintiff as a correctional officer in May 2010. The DOC operates one of the largest single-site pretrial detention facilities in the U.S. One essential function of correctional officers is maintaining the safety and security of the DOC’s staff, inmates, and visitors.

Security incidents occur regularly in the DOC. Correctional officers must respond to security incidents in their assigned area, and some security incidents might require all correctional officers to respond. Correctional officers must respond to incidents appropriately so that any threats are quickly and effectively defused because failure to do so could result in fatal consequences.

Before the DOC hired the plaintiff as a correctional officer, she was diagnosed with scleroderma, irritable bowel syndrome, lupus, and Raynaud’s syndrome. At times, these conditions flare up. To respond to these flare-ups, the plaintiff sought accommodations from the DOC.

Initially, the DOC accommodated the plaintiff by putting her on a modified duty assignment at the visitor information center. However, following budget cuts, the DOC was faced with a severe staffing shortage.

In response, HR sought to maximize the existing DOC workforce by sending a letter to all employees in light or modified duty assignments, including the plaintiff. The letter stated that the recipients were unable to perform the essential functions of their position and asked the recipients to respond in one of three ways: 1) provide updated medical documentation indicating the recipient no longer had work restrictions, 2) request a reasonable accommodation under the ADA, or 3) take a skills assessment to determine whether the recipient qualified for a vacant position at the DOC.

The plaintiff was on medical leave when she received the 2018 letter. In February 2019, the plaintiff briefly returned to full-duty work at the DOC before taking disability leave in March. Since that time, the plaintiff had been off the payroll, and her disability benefits had expired.

In May 2019, the plaintiff provided an “ADA Accommodation Form” completed by her physician. The form opined that the plaintiff needed more frequent breaks to avoid standing for long periods and was unable to stand for long periods without relief or rest. The form also stated that the plaintiff could perform the essential functions of her position if she were allowed more frequent breaks, rest periods, and bathroom breaks, up to three additional times per shift.

The plaintiff completed a similar form and requested the same accommodations her doctor recommended. The HR director of employee services called and emailed the plaintiff about her requested accommodations. The plaintiff asked her to speak to her attorney instead and did not respond to any further communication attempts. On Nov. 11, 2019, the HR director contacted the plaintiff by email and informed her that no reasonable accommodations existed that would assist the plaintiff in performing the essential functions of her position.

The plaintiff subsequently sued the DOC, alleging that the DOC failed to accommodate her and discriminated against her in violation of the ADA. The DOC filed a motion for summary judgment, and the district court granted the motion.

On appeal, the 7th Circuit determined that the undisputed evidence showed that correctional officers must be able to stand unassisted for long periods of time, sometimes for the entirety of their shift, a period of eight to 10 hours. The plaintiff claimed that she could stand for long periods of time, but her doctor’s note contradicted that representation. As a result, the additional breaks that she needed, as described by her doctor, were not reasonable accommodations at the DOC.

The 7th Circuit thus upheld the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims by the district court.

Leibas v. Dart, 7th Cir., No. 23-1275 (July 29, 2024).

Jeffrey Rhodes is an attorney with McInroy, Rigby & Rhodes LLP in Arlington, Va.