Hospital Supervisor with MS Cannot Go Forward with Failure-to-Accommodate Claim

​A hospital supervisor who had multiple sclerosis (MS) and asked to be allowed to telecommute whenever his MS flared could not proceed with his failure-to-accommodate claim under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA), a federal appeals court ruled. For a failure-to-accommodate claim to move forward to trial, an employee must show that the employer failed to engage in the interactive process in good faith. The employee in this case failed to make such a showing, the court said.

The employee worked in customer service for a hospital and in 2016 was promoted to patient access supervisor. He was responsible for training and managing a team of approximately 20 employees to assist patients over the phone in verifying insurance coverage and determining out-of-pocket health care costs. Most of the employee's direct reports telecommuted full time.

The hospital's policy allowed managers to telecommute one day a week, and, as of 2018, two days per week. The employee's manager allowed her direct reports additional teleworking days on a case-by-case basis.

In 2016, the employee was diagnosed with MS. As his disease progressed, he began to have difficulty walking, standing and breathing, and experienced fatigue and burning sensations in his eyes and hands, particularly when his MS flared.

He first requested an accommodation in December 2017, when he asked his manager if he could telecommute when his MS flared. His manager denied that accommodation, explaining that allowing him to telecommute during a flare-up would be unfair to his co-supervisor. Instead, the hospital suggested that the employee use paid time off and Family and Medical Leave Act leave on those occasions.

In February 2018, the employee again asked for permission to telecommute when his condition flared and supplied the hospital a letter from his neurologist recommending as much. In March 2018, he met with his manager and a human resource professional, and he renewed his request to telecommute when he experienced a flare-up of his MS.

The hospital denied the request, telling him that he could ask his manager on a case-by-case basis to work from home during a flare-up. His manager told him that the hospital could not accommodate his request because he needed to supervise direct reports in the office and because his flare-ups were unpredictable. The employee recalled only one instance when his manager denied a request to telework during a flare-up and required him to take time off instead.

The employee voluntarily resigned in August 2018, as he feared that he was in danger of being discharged due to his condition. He did not communicate this concern to the hospital either before he resigned or in his resignation letter.

He sued the hospital, alleging, among other claims, a failure to accommodate under the ADA and the MHRA. The trial court dismissed the claims before trial, and the employee appealed.

Proving Failure-to-Accommodate Claims

The appeals court first noted that the ADA and MHRA use the same analysis for failure-to-accommodate claims.

Under both laws, an employee must show that they can perform the essential functions of the job in question, with or without reasonable accommodation. The court concluded that the employee had made this showing.

By allowing the employee to consistently work remotely aside from his medical condition, the hospital implicitly demonstrated a belief that he could perform his essential job functions without being in the office all the time, the court said. Moreover, while working remotely, the employee continued to receive positive performance reviews, reflecting that he was able to effectively supervise his employees despite not being onsite.

However, the appeals court continued, for a failure-to-accommodate claim to move forward to trial, an employee must also show that his employer failed to engage in the interactive process in good faith.

The court found that the employee had not shown this lack of good-faith effort by the employer, noting that the hospital took several steps in response to the employee's request for accommodation. The hospital approved permission for him to work from home on a case-by-case basis and told him that he could follow up if he had any questions or concerns. The employee never requested a follow-up conversation. Furthermore, the court said, only one of the employee's requests to work from home was denied, and on that day, he used paid time off.

The court affirmed the trial court's decision dismissing the claims before trial.

Mobley v. St. Luke's Health System Inc., 8th Cir., No. 21-2417 (Nov. 16, 2022).

Joanne Deschenaux, J.D., is a freelance writer in Annapolis, Md.