Vague Doctor's Note Did Not Prove the Need for Extra Lunchtime



​A former employee who submitted a vague doctor's note and then resigned during the interactive accommodation process could not establish that her former employer failed to provide her with a reasonable accommodation pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The plaintiff, a receptionist for UAW-GM Center for Human Resources (CHR), was born with Crouzon syndrome, a genetic disorder for which she had undergone multiple surgeries over the years. For each surgery, CHR granted her time away from work.

CHR allowed employees to select a 30- or 60-minute lunch break, effective for the year. Employees who selected a 30-minute break were allowed two additional 15-minute breaks, but under normal circumstances these breaks were not to be tacked on to the lunch break. The plaintiff selected a 30-minute lunch break, which could not begin until 11:00 a.m.

The plaintiff exercised in CHR's onsite gym during her lunch break and began heading for the gym at 10:30 a.m. to give herself an extended lunch break. In 2014, the plaintiff asked to extend her lunch break to 60 minutes or to tack on a separate 10-minute break so that she could work out longer at the gym. Although the plaintiff explained that she started exercising to help with pain from a previous surgery, she did not mention her disability or a need to work out longer at midday to help her perform her job.

On June 6, 2014, CHR denied her request, given the policy of lunch breaks remaining in effect for a year, reiterated that her lunch break did not start at 10:30 a.m. and warned her that failure to follow policy could result in disciplinary action. Alternatively, CHR offered to allow the plaintiff to arrive 15 minutes earlier and work out in the morning before her shift started. This did not satisfy the plaintiff.

On June 12, 2014, the plaintiff submitted a physician's letter requesting that she be allowed "to continue strengthening exercises daily for 30 to 60 minutes, Monday through Friday." Four days later, when the plaintiff asked about the status of her request, she was told that it required approval from both co-executive directors, one of whom was out of the office, but that it was likely "going to be OK."

Later that day, knowing that her request was not yet approved, the plaintiff headed to the gym. When she was directed back to work by her supervisor, she responded with profanity. After eventually admitting to heading to the gym early and to her profane response, the plaintiff was suspended for the remainder of the day and the next day. Instead, the plaintiff went on personal leave, and on July 10, 2014, she resigned from CHR.

The plaintiff argued that CHR discriminated against her because of her disability, in violation of the ADA, by failing to provide her with a reasonable accommodation. The ADA requires companies to make "reasonable accommodations to the known limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability," as long as that accommodation does not cause the company undue hardship. It does not allow people with disabilities to choose their own job schedules.

[SHRM members-only toolkit: Accommodating Employees' Disabilities]

The court described the evidence as insufficient to show that the accommodation requested—a longer lunch break—was necessary to accommodate the plaintiff. The physician's letter was too vague to show that she needed an extended lunch break, since she had a 30-minute lunch break and two other 15-minute breaks to complete the 30 minutes of recommended exercise. Additionally, the letter never mentioned that the exercises must occur at a certain time in the day or for an uninterrupted block of time. The "need for a 60-minute lunch break," the court remarked, "simply does not follow from this letter."

The plaintiff also alleged that CHR failed to engage in the ADA's required interactive process. However, the court emphasized that CHR immediately proposed an alternative accommodation that the plaintiff rejected based on preference. The company kept her updated and told her that her request would likely be OK. The court explained that "an employee who quits before the accommodation request's resolution is at fault for any breakdown in the interactive process, not the employer."

McDonald v. UAW-GM Center for HR, 6th Cir., No. 17-1875 (June 21, 2018).

Professional Pointer: A reasonable accommodation must be effective, meaning that the provided accommodation must enable the individual to perform the essential functions of the job. A reasonable accommodation does not include eliminating essential functions, lowering performance standards or providing personal amenities.

Roger S. Achille is an attorney and a professor at Johnson & Wales University in Providence, R.I.