No Reasonable Accommodation Means No Disability Discrimination Claim

Takeaway: State disability laws and their interpretation may sometimes differ from the Americans with Disabilities Act and related federal case law. When federal and state laws both apply, there may be conflicts, and the law most generous to the employee should be followed.

A ninth-grade English teacher requesting indefinite leave was not a qualified employee under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled, affirming summary judgment for a private preparatory school in Reading, Mass.

No reasonable accommodation existed that would have allowed her to perform the essential job functions, the court decided.

Three days into the start of the 2019-2020 school year, on Sept. 5, the teacher underwent hip replacement surgery and informed the school that she expected to be out for four weeks. At the time, she had accumulated the maximum 65 days of sick leave allowed under the school’s sick-leave policy. The school granted the leave of absence and hired a substitute teacher on a per-day basis to cover the teacher’s classes.

Five weeks later, on Oct. 13, the teacher emailed the school to inform them that she had to have a second surgery due to a complication from the first surgery. She requested three more months of leave while she recuperated at a critical care facility and undertook physical rehabilitation, which the school approved past the end of the calendar year through Jan. 5, 2020.

The school told her that she would need to provide clearance from her doctor to return to work. The school also notified her that she qualified to apply for long-term disability benefits as of Dec. 2, at which time she would have used 59 of her 65 sick-leave days.

Following the second surgery, the teacher suffered an infection that required a third surgery on Nov. 27. On the teacher’s long-term disability benefits application form, her doctor stated that the teacher would have a total temporary disability for three to six months.

The school sent the teacher’s doctor an “accommodation request inquiry form” in early December 2019, informing him that the teacher had requested an accommodation under the ADA and requesting information about whether there was a reasonable accommodation that would allow her to perform the essential job functions. The school also attached a copy of the teacher’s job description to the form.

The doctor’s response stated that the teacher was substantially limited in several major life activities and was unable to walk, bend, use the stairs, sleep, squat, lift or drive. He explained that the teacher would have trouble performing all the functions of her job due to these limitations for three to six months. In response to the question “Do you have any suggestions regarding possible accommodations to improve job performance? If so, what are they?” he wrote, “She should be on total temporary disability.”

The school contacted the teacher on Dec. 26 to inform her that her employment was terminated, effective immediately. The school explained that she had exhausted her leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), along with all her paid time off. It noted that she had been absent from work since September and was expected to be unable to return to work for another three to six months. The school said it could not provide “an extended and continuing leave of absence with no end date.” The school also informed the teacher that it had submitted her completed paperwork for long-term disability insurance benefits, and they had been accepted for review.

Court Action

The teacher filed a lawsuit alleging disability discrimination in violation of the ADA and Massachusetts state law. The federal district court granted summary judgment to the school, finding that regular attendance was an essential function of the teacher’s job, and there existed no reasonable accommodation that would allow her to perform that requirement. The teacher then appealed to the 1st Circuit.

In its review, the appeals court held that it did not need to go beyond the three-step McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. That framework requires a plaintiff to show that she:

• Had a disability within the meaning of the ADA.
• Was a qualified individual covered under ADA.
• Was discharged in whole or in part because of the disability.

The appeals court found that the teacher had not demonstrated that she was a qualified individual who could perform the essential job functions—in this case, regular attendance—with or without a reasonable accommodation.

The court disagreed with the teacher’s argument that additional leave was a reasonable accommodation in this case. The 1st Circuit instead found merit in the district court’s reasoning that an extended period of leave with no end date was not reasonable in the context of teaching and school responsibilities because of the negative impact on maintaining consistency of classroom teachers for the students. In addition, the court noted that the proposed accommodation would require the school to risk relying on a day-to-day substitute teacher who could leave at any time without notice.

The appeals court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of both the ADA and state law claims.

Der Sarkisian v. Austin Preparatory Sch., 1st Cir., No. 23-1040 (Nov. 7, 2023).

Robert S. Teachout, SHRM-SCP, works in the Washington, D.C., area and is a legal editor for Brightmine™ HR & Compliance Centre, a service helping HR build successful and purposeful workplaces.