Topical ADA Archive

Essential Functions/"Otherwise Qualified"

• Ackan v. N.Y.S. Dept. of Labor, (DC NNY), 8 AD Cases 1385, 10/23/1998
  
  Summary: Ability to conduct on-site inspections is essential function of position of state safety and health inspector, since job exists to perform asbestos inspections, number of employees among whom performance of that job function can be distributed is limited, state agency has determined that on-site inspection is essential function of job as is evidenced by written description and past experience; utility of job would be nullified if inspector cannot make on-site check of contractors' compliance with asbestos regulations.
  
  
• Albertsons, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, (Sup.Ct.) (98-591), (BNA cite not yet available), 6/22/1999
  
  Summary: Delivery driver with seriously impaired vision claimed that ADA required an employer to justify as a business necessity its decision to enforce DOT safety regulations and terminate his employment as driver. The Court ruled that an employer who requires that an employee meet a federal safety regulation does not have to justify enforcing the regulation even though its standard may be waived experimentally in an individual case.
  
  
• Backer v. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, (DC WMich 1996), 7 AD Cases 1011, 11/15/1996
  
  Summary: Employee with respiratory ailment who proposed that employer move her to another building has not shown that other buildings were free of chemicals or other irritants that would cause her respiratory distress, and she did not show that essential functions of her job--distributing production schedules, interacting with other members of her unit, or receiving supervision from her unit supervisor, could be performed in another building.
  
  
• Brickers v. Cleveland Board of Ed., (CA 6), 8 AD Cases 534, 7/16/1998
  
  Summary: Employee was a bus driver for the Cleveland Board of Education who sought an accommodation to her disability in the form of a transfer to a bus attendant position. The court held that lifting was an essential function of the bus attendant's position, and that the employer need not exempt an employee from performing an essential function in order to accommodate that employee's disabilities. Primary among the qualifications for a bus attendant is a requirement under state regulations that the attendant has the "[p]hysical capability of appropriately lifting and managing handicapped pupils when necessary." Therefore, in order to comply with state law, the Board must hire as school bus attendants only those applicants able to lift. Although, as the employee argued, it may be true that an attendant seldom, if ever, must perform any lifting, the ability to lift would be crucial in an emergency situation, such as an accident or fire. Much like a police officer must have the skill required to use a firearm yet might never actually draw his or her weapon, it only stands to reason that a bus attendant charged with the supervision and care of a group of children with peculiar needs and limitations would be able to account for those needs and limitations in any foreseeable circumstance, regardless of whether that circumstance actually arises. A lifting requirement is one sensible means toward ensuring that a bus attendant will adequately protect his or her charges in the event of an emergency, however unlikely.
  
  
• Cehrs v.Northeast Ohio Alzheimer's Research Center (CA 6), 8 AD Cases 825, 9/1/98
  
  Summary: It is improper to presume that uninterrupted attendance is an essential job requirement. If an employer cannot show that an accommodation unduly burdens it, then there is no reason to deny the employee the accommodation. It is essential to give each disability claim individualized attention.
  
  
• Deane v. Pocono Medical Center, (CA 3), 7 AD Cases 1809, 4/15/1998
  
  Summary: Terminated nurse with wrist injury has raised factual issue as to whether she was qualified for job, even though written job description mentions lifting as essential function, since EEOC's guidance says that employer's judgment as to which functions are essential and written job descriptions are two possible, but not incontestable, types of evidence on this point, regulations further state that determination must be made on case-by-case basis based on all relevant evidence, and nurse has offered expert testimony to support her view that she was qualified.
  
  
• Foremanye v. Bd. Of Comm. College, (DC Md), 8 AD Cases 131, 3/20/1996
  
  Summary: Former college assessment coordinator who had attendance problems because of her medical conditions, variously described as mitral valve prolapse leaflet syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome, and chronic Epstein-Barr syndrome, that were allegedly related to stress of her job could not perform essential functions of her job, even with requested accommodation of 7.5 hours reduction in her weekly hours, and she is thus not qualified individual under ADA; accommodation that she sought was equivalent to being absent for one full day each week, but full attendance was clearly essential for adequate performance of duties of job, certain amount of stress was inherent in performance of those duties, and this stress caused her severe physical problems and prevented her from fulfilling her job responsibilities.
  
  
• Hamlin v. Charter Township of Flint, (CA 6), 8 AD Cases 1688, 1/8/1999
  
  Summary: Terminated assistant fire chief's application for and receipt of disability benefits does not preclude him from maintaining that he is otherwise qualified. Asst. chief never stated in the application that he could not perform duties of assistant fire chief. He contended that he was physically unable to fight fires, and fact that disability board granted him disability pension benefits on that basis is not inconsistent with his contention that his essential job functions did not include firefighting.
  
  
• Holbrook v. City of Alpharetta, (CA 11), 6 AD Cases 1409, 5/22/1997
  
  Summary: Driving automobile and collecting certain kinds of crime scene evidence--two functions that former city detective can no longer do as result of his impaired vision--are essential functions of job. Collection of evidence is part of job description of city police detectives, and state's driver's license is requirement for job. Employee cannot perform independently full-scale investigation of many types of crime scenes and must be accompanied by fellow detective if need for such investigation arises, and he concedes that collection of evidence is specialized task requiring training.
  
  
• Hypes v. First Commerce Corp., (CA 5), 7 AD Cases 1546, 2/12/1998
  
  Summary: Loan review analyst whose job could not be done at home because it required him to review various confidential loan documents and to work as member of team was not "otherwise qualified'' for job, and bank thus did not violate ADA or Louisiana Civil Rights Act for Handicapped Persons even if it discharged him because of his chronic obstructive lung disease, since it was essential that he be in office regularly, as near to normal business hours as possible, and work full schedule, and even with requested flex-time accommodation he could not arrive at work early enough or often enough to perform essential functions of job.
  
  
• Jones v. Kerrville State Hospital, (CA 5), 8 AD Cases 129, 6/4/1998
  
  Summary: Employer did not violate ADA in refusing to allow nurse with arthritic conditions to work in direct-care position, where evidence clearly supports jury's finding that completion of physical section of behavior-management training was essential function of job, and nurse has presented no proof that she could have completed section with reasonable accommodation.
  
  
• Kees v. Wallenstein, (CA 9), 8 AD Cases 1629, 11/25/1998
  
  Summary: Former corrections officers whose various medical conditions restricted them from direct inmate contact and who were assigned to control room until they were separated are not qualified individuals with disabilities under ADA. No accommodation would allow them to have direct inmate contact, and direct inmate contact is essential function of position. Both employer and written job description identify inmate contact as fundamental duty, corrections officers assigned to control room are not expected to have inmate contact on regular basis but some incidental contact is inevitable. Corrections officers' ability to restrain inmates during emergency is critical to jail security, and collective bargaining contract indicates that corrections officers are expected to rotate among several positions, most of which require inmate contact.
  
  
• Koshinski v. Decator Foundry, (CA 7), 9 AD Cases 353, 4/22/1999
  
  Summary: Employee was cupola operator, whose job involved using a cylindrical shaft blast furnace for remelting iron before casting. Employer's refusal to return employee with degenerative disease to work because condition would be exacerbated by his job did not violate ADA, despite contention that ADA is not paternalistic statute designed to protect disabled person from himself. Employee could not perform essential functions of job when employer decided to let him go.
  
  
• Laurin v. Providence Hospital, (CA 1), 8 AD Cases 768, 7/28/1998
  
  Summary: Fact that hospital provided nurse with temporary eight-week accommodation during which it allowed her to work straight-day shift without rotating shifts does not undercut its contention that it could not cover all three shifts without shift-rotation requirement; it would be perverse to discourage employers from accommodating employees with a temporary breathing space during which to seek another position with employer. Employer does not concede that job function is ``non-essential'' simply by voluntarily assuming limited burden associated with temporary accommodation, nor thereby acknowledge that burden associated with permanent accommodation would not be unduly onerous.
  
  
• Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc., (Sup.Ct.) (97-1992), (BNA cite not yet available), 6/22/1999
  
  Summary: United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS), hired petitioner as a mechanic, a position that required him to drive commercial vehicles. To drive, he had to satisfy certain Department of Transportation (DOT) health certification requirements, including having "no current clinical diagnosis of high blood pressure likely to interfere with his/her ability to operate a commercial vehicle safely." 49 CFR § 391.41(b)(6). Despite petitioner's high blood pressure, he was erroneously granted certification and commenced work. After the error was discovered, respondent fired him on the belief that his blood pressure exceeded the DOT's requirements. The Court held that under the ADA, the determination of whether petitioner's impairment "substantially limits" one or more major life activities is made with reference to the mitigating measures he employs. The Tenth Circuit concluded that, when medicated, petitioner's high blood pressure does not substantially limit him in any major life activity. Because the question of whether petitioner is disabled when taking medication is not before this Court, there is no occasion here to consider whether he is "disabled" due to limitations that persist despite his medication or the negative side effects of his medication.
  
  
• Nesser v. Trans World Airlines, (CA 8), 8 AD Cases 1348, 11/10/1998
  
  Summary: Discharged employee did not establish that he could perform essential functions of his job without accommodation, as he was unable to attend work on regular basis.
  
  
• Roberts v. County of Fairfax, (DC EVa) 8 AD Cases 919, 8/13/1996
  
  Summary: Inherent in the definition of a "qualified individual'' under the ADA is a significant limitation: the individual must be willing to accept the employer's efforts at reasonable accommodation if the accommodation is necessary for the individual to perform the job. The ADA implementing regulations embody precisely this principle by providing that
  

  [a] qualified individual with a disability is not required to accept an accommodation, aid, service, opportunity or benefit that such qualified individual chooses not to accept. However, if such individual rejects a reasonable accommodation, aid, service, opportunity or benefit that is necessary to enable the individual to perform the essential functions of the position held or desired, and cannot, as a result of that rejection, perform the essential functions of the position, the individual will not be considered a qualified individual with a disability.
  

  29 C.F.R. §1630.9(d). Citing this provision, the Sixth Circuit has ruled that an employee who was having performance problems stemming from migraine headaches was not a "qualified individual'' under the ADA because she declined to avail herself of the accommodations her employer had made available to her. Hankins v. The Gap, Inc., 5 AD Cases 924 (6th Cir. 1996). In that case, the plaintiff attempted to argue that she was not adequately notified of the possibility of taking leave as an accommodation. The Sixth Circuit, however, concluded that even if this were true, it should have been self-evident to Hankins that taking leave was what she needed to do when a migraine occurred. In addition, the court concluded that Hankins' refusal to accept an available reasonable accommodation precluded her from arguing that other accommodations should have been provided. The Hankins reasoning applies with equal force to this case.
  
  
• Serrano v. County of Arlington, (DC EVa 1997), 7 AD Cases 1056, 1/26/1997
  
  Summary: Being able to lift weight of average adult is essential function of firefighter position, where written job description warns that job involves exposure to hazardous and physically demanding conditions, firefighters may have to perform many unassisted rescues throughout career, and potentially grave consequences may result in emergency if firefighter cannot perform this function; fact that firefighters spend small amount of time performing this activity does not make it any less essential, and county's decision to use lower weight in physical agility test is not dispositive because it uses other physical examinations and medical judgments to determine whether applicant can carry out rescues at greater weights.
  
  
• Tardie v. Rehabilitation Hospital of Rhode Island, (CA 1) BNA cite not yet available, 2/24/1999
  
  Summary: Employee experienced chest pain, shortness of breath, dizziness and numbness in her arms as a result of an enlarged heart. Employee contended that the symptoms were a result of working excessive hours (i.e. hours over forty). Court held that the extended hours requirement is an essential function of the employee's position. The job description stated that the person holding the position must have "sufficient endurance to perform tasks over long periods of time." The employee admitted that dealing with employee issues beyond 9:00 to 5:00 was part of the job; she was frequently needed to be present at work for at least a portion of all three work shifts; and the position often required her to return to work after going home for the evening.