ADA Did Not Require Restaurant to Offer Seated Job

Takeaway: A fast-casual restaurant chain did not need to convert a cashier/service team member position to a seated cashier position for a job applicant with knee arthritis, an appellate court ruled. The position required standing and quick movement, making it unreasonable for an applicant to sit at regular intervals.

A federal appeals court ruled that a fast-casual restaurant chain was not required to accommodate a cashier applicant's request for a seated position, as it would fundamentally alter the essential functions of the role.

Chicken Salad Chick, a fast-casual restaurant chain founded in 2008 in Auburn, Ala., focuses its menu on serving varieties of freshly made chicken salad, and the restaurant chain now includes more than 300 franchise locations across the United States. A manager staffs each location and oversees a group of team members. The company refers to team members informally as cashier or service team members. These team members deal directly with customers, while other team members work behind the scenes to craft the restaurant’s signature menu items.

The cashier-service role has many aspects. To start, the company expects cashier-service team members to operate a point-of-sale system for taking customer orders — both dine-in and carry-out. They also stock the restaurant's drink station and refrigeration unit, which houses pre-made cartons of chicken salad. Employees in this position must expedite food orders, take food from the prep window adjacent to the kitchen, prepare beverages, and deliver those items to customers, whether at checkout or at their table. To maintain the guest area, managers expect cashier-service team members to clean tables, vacuum, take out trash, and maintain the cleanliness of the customer bathrooms.

Given the restaurant’s nature, the company expected all team members to operate in a fast-paced environment requiring effective multitasking and well-paced mobility.

The plaintiff, who has arthritis in her knees, applied for a cashier-service team member position at the Chicken Salad Chick location in Crestview Hills, Ky. During her interview, she disclosed that she had difficulty standing for long periods and would therefore require an unspecified amount of rest while working. That disclosure did not derail her application. Chicken Salad Chick hired the plaintiff before the interview concluded. 

The company soon sent various onboarding documents to complete for her expected start date, which the plaintiff submitted a few days early. In those papers, the plaintiff indicated that she needed to sit when needed or sit and work. When the plaintiff arrived for work, management told her that she could not start due to a paperwork issue concerning her accommodation request. 

Toolkit: Accommodating Employees’ Disabilities

On the morning of her first day, Chicken Salad Chick’s vice president of human resources notified the manager overseeing the Crestview Hills restaurant that the plaintiff could not begin until her accommodation request was resolved. The vice president called the plaintiff to request medical documentation of her condition. The plaintiff later obtained a note from her doctor, who asked the company to supply the plaintiff with a chair for standing limitations due to knee arthritis.

The vice president asked for more specifics, namely how long the plaintiff could stand, and how often she would need to sit, and for how long. The plaintiff called the vice president and sought an accommodation where she could stand for 10 minutes at a time and then sit for five minutes. The vice president informed the plaintiff that Chicken Salad Chick could not accommodate her request and did not have a position for which she could continually sit.

The plaintiff sued the company, alleging Chicken Salad Chick violated both the ADA and the Kentucky Civil Rights Act by failing to afford her requested accommodation and refusing to engage in an interactive process after she proposed a reasonable accommodation. Chicken Salad Chick moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted. The plaintiff timely appealed to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Toolkit: What You Need to Know About the Americans with Disabilities Act

On appeal, the 6th Circuit found the plaintiff did not satisfy her initial burden of showing her proposed accommodation was objectively reasonable based on the essential functions of the position. The nature of the position required a team member to shift from one duty to another at a moment’s notice in a fast-paced environment. The plaintiff’s request to sit in one location for a duration of five minutes in front of a cash register after standing for 10 would necessarily and fundamentally change the nature of the position. For one-third of her shift, the plaintiff would be isolated to operating the cash register, regardless of whether there was a customer waiting to pay. 

Because the plaintiff did not propose a reasonable accommodation, Chicken Salad Chick did not have an obligation to engage in the reasonable accommodation process. The 6th Circuit thus upheld the district court’s grant of summary judgment.

Bowles v. SSRG II LLC dba Chicken Salad Chick, 6th Cir., No. 25-5329 (Dec. 17, 2025).

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