Mechanic Injured on the Job Could Not Be Reasonably Accommodated

Takeaway: There is rarely a litmus test for determining the essential functions of a job or the tasks necessary to perform them—critical steps in evaluating whether potential accommodations are reasonable. This case shows the importance of involving people with personal knowledge about the job at issue, including the employee seeking the accommodation, when making these assessments.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MDOT) on claims that it violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to provide a mechanic with a reasonable accommodation and terminating his employment. The court held that MDOT, after conducting an extensive analysis, correctly determined that the mechanic could not perform the essential job functions and could not be reasonably accommodated.

The mechanic held the position of heavy equipment field mechanic. He suffered a serious on- the-job injury that required multiple surgeries and resulted in a lengthy absence. The mechanic initially returned to work in a light-duty position with limits on the hours he could work. Ultimately, his physician determined that he had reached his maximum potential recovery and released him to work full time, but with permanent restrictions, including limits on the periods of time he could outstretch his arms and reach overhead.

MDOT convened a work analysis team to assess whether these restrictions could be reasonably accommodated. The team met multiple times to identify the essential functions of the heavy equipment field mechanic job and potential reasonable accommodations. It concluded that repair and maintenance were essential job functions. The team then specifically defined the tasks necessary to perform each function. If the mechanic’s restrictions impacted the performance of any task, the team analyzed potential accommodations that might enable him to perform the task.

On the basis of this extensive analysis, the team concluded that the mechanic could not perform the essential functions of the job with or without a reasonable accommodation. The team prepared a report with its findings and provided it to the mechanic. They later met with him to obtain his input and ideas about any potential accommodations. The mechanic did not dispute any of the team’s findings, but instead suggested stretch breaks as an accommodation. After the meeting, the team considered other potential accommodations, including a reassignment to a similar position.

The team met with the mechanic again and concluded that there were not viable reasonable accommodations that would enable him to perform the essential functions of the job. Based on the team’s findings, MDOT did not return the mechanic to the heavy equipment field mechanic position or the related position. When the mechanic’s Family and Medical Leave Act leave expired, MDOT considered him as having resigned.

The mechanic sued MDOT under the ADA, asserting that he was able to perform the essential functions of his position with a reasonable accommodation and that in the alternative, he should have been reassigned to another position. The 8th Circuit agreed with the district court that “no reasonable jury could find either that [the mechanic] was qualified to perform the essential functions of his former position or that a reasonable accommodation was possible.”

The mechanic argued that the team overstated the frequency and duration of the tasks required to repair and maintain heavy equipment that exceeded his restrictions.

The court observed that while the job description generally provided that the tasks at issue were being performed frequently, the team defined what “frequently” meant based on the experience and knowledge of the two supervisors who themselves were mechanics as well as calculations provided by the employee himself. Noting that “a plaintiff’s subjective experience has little weight in our analysis of a job’s essential functions,” the court ruled that the team “accurately and reasonably” determined the essential job functions.

The court rejected the mechanic’s argument that he should have been reassigned to another position because he did not show that he had the ability to perform the essential functions of that job with or without a reasonable accommodation. The mechanic failed to introduce evidence that the essential functions of the other position were different from those of the job he held. Significantly, one of the supervisors on the team testified that the mechanic’s restrictions prevented him from being able to perform the tasks needed for the duration required.

Accordingly, if he had been reassigned, the company would have been required to either hire another employee to perform the tasks once the mechanic reached the limit of his restrictions or assign another employee to perform them. The court explained that employers are generally not required to provide “an accommodation that would cause other employees to work harder, longer, or be deprived of opportunities” or one that would require the hiring of another employee.

Goosen v. Minnesota Department of Transportation, 8th Cir. No. 23-2360 (June 24, 2024).

Jonathan D. Wetchler is an attorney with Duane Morris in Philadelphia.