When an employee abandoned the interactive process for identifying a reasonable accommodation and got her permanent work restrictions lifted, the employer was not liable for failing to provide an accommodation, according to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
While working at the company as a sorter, the plaintiff injured her back. She admitted that her job required frequent lifting of 20 to 50 pounds and occasional lifting of 51 to 70 pounds. Until the plaintiff injured her back, she also worked as a temporary cover driver, delivering and picking up packages. She admitted that the temporary cover driver position required sometimes lifting packages weighing up to 70 pounds.
The plaintiff provided the company with two return-to-work notes, both of which contained permanent work restrictions. The first said to avoid lifting more than 30 pounds and to avoid pushing or pulling more than 30.5 pounds. The second note released the plaintiff to return to her sorter position, but with no driving.
The plaintiff hand-delivered both notes to her supervisor, who would not allow her to work because both of her positions required lifting more than 30 pounds. The supervisor informed the plaintiff that she could receive work accommodations to account for her restrictions. More than two weeks later, after the plaintiff filed grievances with her union, the company sent her a letter informing her that it was initiating an internal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) interactive process and asked her to submit two medical forms to allow the company to evaluate her restrictions and identify possible accommodations.
After the plaintiff submitted the completed forms, she met with company administrators to discuss potential accommodations. During that meeting, the plaintiff stated that she wanted to voluntarily discontinue the ADA interactive process and return to her doctor to have her work restrictions lifted. The plaintiff met with her physician, the physician removed her restrictions, and the plaintiff returned to work. Several months later, she brought an action under the ADA for failure to accommodate, disability discrimination and other state law claims.
[SHRM members-only toolkit: Accommodating Employees' Disabilities]
The district court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove her case because she could not prove that the company failed to grant her accommodation request or was unwilling to accommodate her permanent restrictions. The court also held that the plaintiff voluntarily abandoned the interactive process.
On appeal, the 6th Circuit held that the ADA does not obligate employers to make on-the-spot accommodations of the employee's choosing. Under the ADA, an employer must engage in an informal, interactive process with the employee to identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations. The interactive process is mandatory, and both parties have a duty to participate in good faith.
Thus, the company had no legal obligation to provide the plaintiff her requested accommodation on the very day she returned to work. The company had discretion to provide a reasonable accommodation as identified through the interactive process. The 6th Circuit noted that the plaintiff voluntarily abandoned the interactive process, which relieved the company from liability for failing to provide a reasonable accommodation.
Brumley v. United Parcel Service, 6th Cir., No. 18-5453 (Nov. 30, 2018).
Professional Pointer: While an employer does maintain discretion in deciding what accommodation will or should be provided to an employee, both the employer and the employee maintain responsibility for ongoing engagement in the interactive process, including adequate and timely communication and provision of requested written documents.
Mary Walsh Dempsey is an attorney with Ufberg & Associates, LLP, the Worklaw® Network member firm in Scranton, Pa.
[Visit SHRM's resource page on the Americans with Disabilities Act.]
An organization run by AI is not a futuristic concept. Such technology is already a part of many workplaces and will continue to shape the labor market and HR. Here's how employers and employees can successfully manage generative AI and other AI-powered systems.
Related Content
HR must always include human intelligence and oversight of AI in decision-making in hiring and firing, a legal expert said at SHRM24. She added that HR can ensure compliance by meeting the strictest AI standards, which will be in Colorado’s upcoming AI law.
The proliferation of artificial intelligence in the workplace, and the ensuing expected increase in productivity and efficiency, could help usher in the four-day workweek, some experts predict.
Learn how Marsh McLennan successfully boosts staff well-being with digital tools, improving productivity and work satisfaction for more than 20,000 employees.