Request for Better Office Conditions Wasn’t an Accommodation Request

Takeaway: While a requested change that is unrelated to a disability will not be protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a request for accommodation need not specify the nature of the employee’s disability or use the word “accommodation.”

A requested change with no connection to an employee’s disability isn’t a protected accommodation request, according to a recent decision by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

On March 1, 2005, the plaintiff was hired by the town of Abingdon, Va., as the town attorney. One year later, the town appointed him town manager, subject to an employment contract that guaranteed him nine months’ severance pay. He was responsible for managing the town’s day-to-day business affairs, supervising town employees and responding to stakeholder inquiries. The plaintiff claimed that he excelled in the role and exceeded the town’s expectations.

The plaintiff alleged that the elected mayor and Town Council engaged in unprofessional and outrageous behavior that created a caustic work environment. Elected officials allegedly humiliated and harassed directors and staff members and threatened termination to advance their political agendas. According to the plaintiff, the mayor harassed the plaintiff’s staff and undermined his ability to manage them; the former mayor threatened to fire him if he did not support her political goals and appoint her personal friends to favorable positions; and the vice mayor berated him in public meetings and made angry, drunken calls to him at odd hours of the night.

The plaintiff already had anxiety, depression and high blood pressure. As the hostility allegedly intensified, his health deteriorated and his disabilities became intolerable. The plaintiff experienced debilitating anxiety, disorientation, insomnia and feelings of hopelessness. His blood pressure spiked, he experienced dizzy spells, and he had panic attacks at work, disrupting his ability to perform basic tasks. The plaintiff claimed that town employees and department heads witnessed his mistreatment, bought him a blood pressure monitor and urged him to seek medical attention.

In September and December 2017, the plaintiff filed discrimination charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), referencing his disabilities. In January 2018, his law firm sent a letter to town authorities seeking changes to the office environment.

The letter was entitled “Accommodations Requests” and referenced the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), but stated that its overall aim was to foster a well-running office based on principles of mutual respect, clear communication and well-defined roles. The letter requested compliance with the code of ethics, adherence to defined roles, courtesy and care in communications, equal treatment for employees, improved gender diversity, an acknowledgement that town management was a team, and the development of written workplace conduct policies. It did not mention the plaintiff’s anxiety, depression or high blood pressure or explain how the changes might alleviate these disabilities.

Several months later, the town’s legal counsel offered to engage in an interactive process to determine an appropriate accommodation for the plaintiff’s disabilities. The plaintiff claimed that he considered possible accommodations and asked his supervisors to grant him short breaks and a less stressful environment. He discussed his disabilities with council members through a series of individual meetings. The plaintiff claimed that the town ultimately rebuffed the interactive process and stepped up its harassment. Various elected officials allegedly increased his workload and escalated their threats to replace or terminate him. In response, the plaintiff resigned, claiming constructive discharge.

The plaintiff filed a third EEOC charge of discrimination and then a lawsuit asserting claims for ADA discrimination, retaliation, failure to accommodate and interference. The town filed a motion to dismiss, which the district court granted as to the plaintiff’s ADA claims. The plaintiff amended his ADA retaliation and accommodation claims, but the district court later entered summary judgment for the town on the amended claims.

The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his ADA claims based on the absence of a reasonable accommodation request. On appeal, the 4th Circuit noted that an employee need not use any special language when requesting an ADA accommodation. However, the request must notify the employer that it relates to the employee’s medical condition. The court found that the plaintiff’s letter raised no logical connection between his requests and his disability. Rather, the letter raised only grievances and suggestions in response to workplace politics and personality conflicts.

As a result, the 4th Circuit upheld the district court decision dismissing the plaintiff’s claims.

Kelly v. Town of Abingdon, Va., 4th Cir., No. 21-2261 (Jan. 2, 2024).

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