HRD > Policy Development > Topical ADA Archive >

Topical ADA Archive

Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship

• EEOC Enforcement Guidance: Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship Under the Americans with Disabilities Act
  
  
• Aka v. Washington Hosp. Center, (CA DC), 8 AD Cases 1093, 10/9/1998
  
  Summary: Employee seeking reassignment to vacant position is "qualified individual with a disability'' if, with or without reasonable accommodation, he can perform essential functions of job to which he seeks reassignment, even if he cannot perform essential functions of his current job.
  
  
• Bailey v. Amsted Industries, (CA 8), 9 AD Cases 292, 4/8/1999
  
  Summary: Former employee who was diagnosed with Graves' Disease and depression did not show that his discharge for absenteeism occurred under circumstances that raise inference of discrimination, where vast majority of his 72 absences were not for medical reasons and thus not related to his alleged disability.
  
  
• Barnett v. U.S. Air Inc., (CA 9), 8 AD Cases 1073, 10/6/1998
  
  In this case, the employee made three concrete suggestions to his employer for accommodation of the limitations created by his disability: (1) that the employer create an exception for him within its seniority system and allow him to remain in the swing-shift mailroom position, (2) that the employer purchase special lifting equipment to enable him to serve in the cargo position, or (3) that the employer alter the cargo position so that Barnett would perform only desk work.
  
  The court found all three proposals unreasonable. The court found that the airline was not required to make an exception for the employee within its seniority system and leave him in the swing-shift mailroom position. Although the seniority system was not as a result of a collective bargaining agreement, the system was relied upon to award equitable job assignments and shifts. Moreover, the policy did not have an exception that could encompass disabled employees. The employee failed to show that special equipment would provide any accommodation of his disability not provided by the forklifts already furnished. Finally, the court rejected the employee's suggestion that the airline should have modified the shift requirements to require only deskwork because reasonable accommodation does not require an employer to eliminate or reassign essential job functions.
  
  
• Bennett v. Henderson, (DC Kan), 8 AD Cases 1361, 8/7/1998
  
  Summary: Accommodation that would be unreasonable for private employer could be found reasonable undertaking for U.S. Government in view of its affirmative goal to be model employer for those with disabilities. There still exists some point at which suggested accommodation exceeds bounds of reasonableness even for U.S. Government, and former U.S. Postal Service employee's requested accommodation crosses that point. Costs would clearly exceed benefit to be derived inasmuch as no evidence indicates that requested accommodations would permit him to perform all essential functions of his position.
  
  
• Cehrs v.Northeast Ohio Alzheimer's Research Center (CA 6), 8 AD Cases 825, 9/1/98
  
  Summary: Case was sent back to the lower court. Lower court erred in holding that an unpaid leave of indefinite duration (or a very lengthy period, such as one year) could never constitute a "reasonable accommodation" under the ADA. Because the employer routinely granted medical leave to its employees and the employee (nurse) had never requested extended leave throughout her tenure with employer, a factual issue existed as to whether the employer would have been unduly burdened by granting further medical leave to the employee with psoriasis.
  
  
• Cassidy v. Detroit Edison, (CA 6), 8 AD Cases 326, 3/12/1998
  
  Summary: Employer that previously had attempted reasonably to accommodate asthmatic employee did not deny her reasonable accommodation by its failure to transfer her to requested allergen-free workplace, where it attempted to locate such facility but her proposal was too vague to inform it of reasonable accommodation or was otherwise simply unavailable; the employee had a duty to propose objectively reasonable accommodation, and she failed to show that there were any vacant positions in such areas.
  
  
• Corder v. Lucent Technologies, Inc., (CA 7), 8 AD Cases 1611, 10/22/1998
  
  Summary: Employer that terminated employee who took enormous amount of paid sick leave due to her depression did not unreasonably refuse to accommodate her when it terminated her for refusing to complete independent medical evaluation after her paid administrative leave expired. Employer went extra mile and then some for her in that it agreed to accommodate her unpredictable need for time off if she would agree to work at particular location; fact that employee would have preferred to work elsewhere is of no consequence.
  
  
• Dalton v. Subaru-Isuzu, (CA 7), 7 AD Cases 1872, 3/26/1998
  
  Summary: Disabled employee will be "qualified'' to be reassigned to different job as accommodation if he can satisfy that position's legitimate prerequisites and be able to perform its essential functions with or without accommodation. However, to avoid infinite regression on accommodation issue, accommodation cannot include transfer to yet third job, but rather all such jobs must be considered at same time.
  
  Employer that is trying to accommodate disabled employee by transferring him to alternative position must first identify full range of alternative positions for which the employee satisfies the employer's legitimate non-discriminatory prerequisites. The employer must determine whether the employee's knowledge, skills, and abilities would enable him to perform essential functions of any of those alternative jobs with or without reasonable accommodations, and consider transferring him to any of these jobs, including those that would represent demotion.
  
  
• Davoll v. Webb, (DC Colo), 7 AD Cases 1479, 10/10/1996
  
  Summary: ADA's reasonable accommodation requirement includes reassignment and imposes duty on employers to consider that avenue. Thus, city, which refused to assign former police officers, who had sustained work-related injuries rendering them unable to effect forceful arrest or fire weapon, to non-patrol positions in which they would not be expected to make forceful arrest as part of their duties, has not shown entitlement to judgment as matter of law on basis that each of them is not "qualified individual with a disability.''
  
  
• DePaoli v. Abbott Laboratories, (CA 7), 7 AD Cases, 3/26/1998
  
  Summary: Employer was not obligated to transfer assembly-line worker who has tendinitis and tenosynovitis to new job, where she never proposed any alternative job for which she satisfied employer's prerequisites and whose essential functions she could perform.
  
  
• Duda v. Bd. Of Education, (CA 7), 8 AD Cases 99, 1/16/1998
  
  Summary: Allegation by school custodian, who had been diagnosed as manic depressive with bipolar disorder, that he had been forced to transfer to location where he is required to work alone under orders not to communicate with any other individual states viable claim under ADA for being segregated. EEOC guidelines state clearly that reassignment cannot be used to segregate or otherwise discriminate against employees with disabilities.
  
  
• EEOC v. Hertz Corp., (DC EMich), 7 AD Cases 1097, 1/6/1998
  
  Summary: Employer that hired two disabled persons under arrangement with company that supplied job coaches did not have continuing duty to employ those persons after it ordered job coaches off premises for misconduct, despite contention that it had continuing duty to find other job coaches to train and supervise them; it had no duty to provide job coaches, on either temporary or permanent basis.
  
  
• Gantt v. Wilson Sporting Goods, (CA 6), 8 AD Cases 308, 5/12/1998
  
  Summary: Employer had no duty to accommodate claimant who, during leave of absence, never made request to return to work and never requested any kind of accommodation, since employer was not required to speculate as to extent of her disability or her need or desire for accommodation, and while it failed to warn her before terminating her for violation of leave policy, she never contacted employer after she received notice of termination to request reconsideration in light of her misunderstanding of leave policy, and even after she received doctor's release she did not contact employer to discuss accommodation for her disability.
  
  
• Gaul v. Lucent Technologies Inc., (CA 3), 7 AD Cases 1223, 1/22/1998
  
  Summary: Request by employee, who is suffering from depression and anxiety-related disorder, to be transferred away from individuals causing him prolonged and inordinate stress would impose impractical obligation on employer. Employer could never achieve more than temporary compliance because compliance would depend entirely on employee's stress level at any given moment and because this in turn would depend on an infinite number of variables, few of which the employer could control. Term "prolonged and inordinate stress'' not only is subject to constant change but is also subject to tremendous abuse. Only certainty for employer would be its obligation to transfer employee to another department whenever he becomes "stressed out'' by co-worker or supervisor, and it is difficult to imagine a more amorphous standard to impose on an employer.
  
  
• Hankins v. The Gap Inc., (CA 6), 5 AD Cases 924, 5/29/1996
  
  Summary: Employer has no duty to reiterate self-evident accommodations to employee suffering from migraine headaches, given her awareness and apparentness of available accommodations. Employee admits that she knew about availability of paid and unpaid medical leave, voluntary time off, personal days, and vacation days. Employee also knew of company medical center because she went there 29 times during her employment, and she does not claim that any leave application was denied to her.
  
  Employee refused to accept available reasonable accommodations, and is therefore precluded from arguing that other accommodations should also have been provided. The employee is not considered a ''qualified individual with a disability'' under ADA because she rejected reasonable accommodations that are necessary for her to perform the essential functions of her job.
  
  
• Haschmann v. Time Warner Entertainment Co., (CA 7), 8 AD Cases 692, 7/29/1998
  
  Summary: Requested medical leave of two-four weeks by employer's former vice president for finance who suffers from lupus was reasonable, despite employer's contention that it could not tolerate continued absence of important executive. There was evidence that the job had been vacant for many months before the employee was hired, that the employer took almost six months to fill her position after her discharge, and that subordinates handled job in interim. Thus, the requested short-term leave of absence would not be an undue hardship.
  
  
• Hypes v. First Commerce Corp., (CA 5), 7 AD Cases 1546, 2/12/1998
  
  Summary: Employee with attendance problems proposed a flex-time accommodation that would allow him to come to work up to one hour late. This accommodation would not have enabled him to perform the essential functions of his job, where that accommodation would rarely have been enough actually to ameliorate his tardiness and absenteeism.
  
  
• Johnson v. State of Maryland, (DC Md), 7 AD Cases 1084, 10/10/1996
  
  Summary: Limited-duty accommodation suggested by former correctional officer, which precludes him from attaining certification in use of firearms, is not reasonable. All correctional officers must be proficient in use of firearms because in emergencies all officers must be able to assume positions that may require its use, and inability to use firearms to help control prison population poses direct threat to safety of other officers and public at large.
  
  
• Kolpas v. G.D. Searle & Co., (DC NIll), 8 AD Cases 1285, 3/17/1997
  
  Summary: Inability to work due to stress imposed by supervisor does not establish ADA-protected disability, since ADA does not protect people from general stresses of workplace.
  
  Former employee did not show that employer failed to reasonably accommodate her by its failure to transfer her to another supervisor or to find her position that did not require working more than 40 hours per week. It is not a reasonable accommodation for an employer to have to transfer an employee to a position under another supervisor as that decision remains with the employer. The employer maintains that working longer than 40 hours per week was at times a necessary function of her job. Two openings available in other departments would have been considered promotions from her current position and required more than 40 hours per week but the employer was not obligated to promote her with an increase in salary as accommodation, and she never applied for either position.
  
  
• Kralik v. Durbin, (CA 3), 12/12/1997, December 12, 1997
  
  Summary: Requested accommodation of being relieved from contractually mandated overtime is not reasonable, despite contention that such accommodation imposes virtually no hardships on employer. Such accommodation would require employer to violate seniority provisions of its collective bargaining contract. It is appropriate for union, rather than employer, to make determination that infringement is justifiable by releasing employer from obligation to follow contractual seniority provision to accommodate qualified individual with disability. (Note: It is crucial to examine the specific language concerning ADA accommodations in the collective bargaining agreement at issue.)
  
  
• Krennerich v. Town of Bristol, (DC Maine), 8 AD Cases 1195, 10/24/1996
  
  Summary: Disabled town park manager's request that his duties be limited to supervision and administration and that someone else be hired on hourly basis to do physical aspects of his job is not reasonable, since essential functions of his job would need to be altered beyond recognition. The requested accommodation can only be accomplished by delegating the majority of his job duties, and because there is only one employee present to perform job function from September to May of each year, delegation simply is not possible, and town is not required to hire substitute for him.
  
  
• Laurin v. Providence Hospital, (CA 1), 8 AD Cases 768, 7/28/1998
  
  Summary: Hospital that has always required all non-senior staff nurses in its 24-hour maternity unit to rotate shifts and that has never made exception articulated legitimate non-discriminatory reason for denying days-only shift rotation to nurse who had fainting spells, where witnesses attested that evening and night shifts were less desirable than day shift and that it was essential that hospital cover shortage of ``straight-evening'' and ``straight-night'' nurses by making shift rotation essential function of all non-senior daytime nursing positions.

  Section of collective bargaining contract specifying prescribed levels of seniority as criterion excusing day nurses in hospital's 24-hour maternity unit from shift-rotation requirement plainly implies that other criteria do not warrant waivers of this requirement and supports hospital's judgment that shift rotation is essential function of day-nurse position in maternity unit; if hospital were to waive shift-rotation requirement for ADA claimant, either other non-senior nurses or senior nurses would have to be called on to cover her evening and night shifts, or hospital would have to try to hire new nurses to cover less desirable shifts.

• Malabarba v. Chicago Tribune Co., (CA 7), 8 AD Cases 1505, 7/22/1998
  
  Summary: Former employee whose lifting restrictions disqualified him from packager position, requested, as an accommodation, that the duties of multi-task packager be split up and he be assigned to position of automatic lift operator. This accommodation is unreasonable where he concedes that he is unable to perform all essential tasks of packager working on support team, such as bending, lifting heavy objects, and standing for long periods of time. Each team member must be trained in every area so that anyone can work on any given assignment. If one team member is absent and the only person available to fill in is the former employee, who is physically incapable of doing so, timing of newspaper's all-important delivery system breaks down.
  
  
• McCreary v. Libbey-Owens-Ford Co., (CA 7), 7 AD Cases 1115, 12/18/1997
  
  Summary: The employer did not fail reasonably to accommodate employee with back injury who worked in soldering department when it failed to reassign him to quality control department, where there is no evidence of a vacant position there. Employee's testimony that he sometimes worked in quality control when there was no work in soldering department is insufficient, since occasional opportunities to work in another department are not equivalent to vacancy for permanent position.
  
  
• Memmer v. Marin County Courts, (CA 9 1999) 9 AD Cases 106, 3/3/1999
  
  Summary: County municipal court did not discriminate against visually impaired litigant when it offered her services of interpreter who was not specially trained in assisting visually disabled, where accommodating her required only helper with ability to observe, read, and communicate verbally with her, which are skills possessed by average person without need for special training.
  
  
• Monette v. EDS Corp., (CA 6), 5 AD Cases 1326, 7/30/1996
  
  Former employee has not shown that his proposal that employer keep him on unpaid medical leave indefinitely until another customer service representative or receptionist position opened up is reasonable accommodation. Employers are simply not required to keep employee on staff indefinitely in hope that some position may become available some time in future. Employer offered uncontradicted evidence that only one customer service representative worked in the employee's building and adequately explained its need to have such representative available. Moreover, it was entirely reasonable for the employer to fill his position permanently rather than temporarily inasmuch as it had no way of knowing when, or even if, he would return to work. He never expressed desire to return to work, and in fact he applied for permanent disability benefits before returning to work unannounced.
  
  
• Moritz v. Frontier Airlines, (CA 8), 8 AD Cases 385 , 7/7/1998
  
  Summary: Requested accommodation by airline station agent who has multiple sclerosis that she be allowed to work exclusively at ticket counter or to have assistant while performing gate duties cannot be considered reasonable. Airline is not required to revise its bidding system, to eliminate her gate duties, to hire additional employees, or to reassign existing workers to assist her in her gate duties.
  
  
• Nesser v. Trans World Airlines, (CA 8), 8 AD Cases 1348, 11/10/1998
  
  Summary: Whether airline's denial of request of airline customer service agent with Crohn's disease to work at home can be violation of ADA will not be considered, where he did not show that reasonable accommodation of transfer to reservations sales agent position, which would allow him to work at home, was possible, as he did not present any evidence that vacant position was available in reservation sales department.
  
  
• Newman v. Chevron U.S.A., (DC STexas), 7 AD Cases 1821, 10/7/1997
  
  Summary: Any possible accommodation that would allow truck driver, who suffers from loss of concentration and memory allegedly due to post-traumatic stress disorder, to continue driving gasoline truck, such as assigning someone else to ride in cab with him, is unreasonable and not required by ADA. It is not reasonable to require that two people do one person's job in name of accommodation; ADA does not require employer to eliminate or reallocate essential functions of job.
  
  
• Nowak v. St. Rita High School, (CA 7), 8 AD Cases 106, 4/24/1998
  
  Summary: ADA does not require employer to accommodate employee who suffers from prolonged illness by allowing him indefinite leave of absence.
  
  
• Randolph v. Rodgers, (CA 8), 9 AD Cases 336, 3/19/1999
  
  Summary: State corrections department's failure to provide sign language interpreter to profoundly hearing- impaired inmate at disciplinary hearing violated ADA. ADA requires that otherwise qualified individuals receive "meaningful access'' to programs and activities.

  However, district court erred in granting summary judgment to inmate. Lower court's reasoning that state legislature's enactment of statute requiring prisons to provide interpreters means as a matter of law that such accommodation is not unduly burdensome is flawed. Corrections department presented substantial evidence that inmate's request for interpreter created safety and security issues, as well as placed financial burden on prison. State statute creates rights and duties under state law, but it cannot be used definitively to establish rights and duties under federal law.
  

• Smith v. Ameritech, (CA 6), 7 AD Cases 917, 11/20/1997
  
  Summary: Former traveling sales representative who suffered chronic pain from back injury sustained in automobile accident that left him able to perform only sedentary work has not shown that his request to be permitted to work at home was reasonable, since he has not presented evidence that he is one of those exceptional individuals who could have worked at home without substantial reduction in quality of performance.
  
  Employer that provides accommodation not required by ADA to one employee is not consequentially obligated to provide same accommodation to other employees.
  
  
• Smith v. Glickman, (CA 8), 7 AD Cases 1820, 3/27/1998
  
  Summary: Employer reasonably accommodated soil scientist's sleep apnea and asthma by reducing his workday and requiring him to wear filtered breathing apparatus while doing field work.
  
  
• Stanley v. Lester M. Prange Inc., (DC EPa 1998), 8 AD Cases 1157, 10/6/1998
  
  Summary: Disabled trucking company log clerk's proposal that she spend up to four hours per day at employer's premises and perform remainder of her tasks at home is not reasonable and would cause undue hardship on employer. Her position required her presence at the workplace to perform virtually all of the essential functions of her job. Her interaction with other employees included training drivers in completing logs, meeting with drivers to review logs, and addressing problems that they encountered on road. The computer that she used to enter drivers' logs was located at employer's office, loss in productivity caused not only by her absence but also by additional time that drivers would spend traveling to her residence would be costly to employer, and there is no safe place for drivers to park trucks near her residence.
  
  
• Templeton v. Neodata Services Inc., (CA 10), 8 AD Cases 1615, 12/10/1998
  
  Summary: Employer lawfully terminated employee who refused to provide requested medical certification while she was on medical leave of absence. Her failure to provide medical information necessary to interactive process precludes her from claiming that employer unreasonably failed to accommodate her disability. Employer's request for medical information was reasonable in light of employee's doctor's letter indicating real doubt as to her ability to return to work; employer cannot be expected to propose reasonable accommodation absent critical information on her medical condition and limitations that it imposes.
  
  
• Terrell v. USAIR, (CA 11), 8 AD Cases 529, 1/6/1998
  
  Summary: Airline was not required to create part-time reservations agent position to accommodate employee's carpal tunnel syndrome after it had eliminated all part-time positions.
  
  Airline did not fail to accommodate reservation agent's carpal tunnel syndrome by its delay in providing her with full-time use of drop keyboard until 13 months after she requested it, where she was on medical leave for 10 of those months, she had some access to drop keyboard during other three months, and she was not required to type when she had no access.
  
  
• Waggoner v. Olin Corp., (CA 7 1999), 9 AD Cases 88, 2/26/1999
  
  Summary: ADA in most instances does not protect persons who have erratic, unexplained absences, even when those absences are a result of a disability, since attendance at job site is basic requirement of most jobs.

  Working part-time or working at home part are accommodations that can and should be made in some cases, but issue in evaluating any requested accommodation will be whether hardship imposed on employer is undue.

• Walton v. Mental Health Assn., (CA 3 1999), 9 AD Cases 34, 2/23/1999
  
  Summary: Obese employee's requested accommodation of continued leave of absence would have created undue burden on employer, even though unpaid leave supplementing regular sick leave and personal days might represent reasonable accommodation, since employer had already granted it to her, and blanket requirement that employer allow such leave is beyond scope of ADA when absent employee simply will not be performing essential functions of her position; she cannot use employer's past grants of unpaid leave to show that requested leave was reasonable, since that unpaid leave exceeded ADA's requirement of reasonable accommodation, and employer's decision to discontinue that accommodation does not give her cause of action.
  

• Webster v. Methodist Occupational Health, (CA 7), 8 AD Cases 33, 4/23/1998
  
  Summary: Employer did not violate its duty to consider transferring to another job industrial nurse who had suffered stroke and who consequently could not work without supervision. No accommodation that she proposed for nursing position offered a way for employer to employ her without supervision. Employee sought assignment to day shift, where it would be easier to have someone looking over her shoulder most of the time, refused to consider non-nursing positions, and refused to contemplate clinical nursing position until after discharge. Rather than participate in ``interactive process,'' employee chose position most to her liking and insisted that employer place her there and nowhere else despite her inability to fulfill its reasonable requirement that its industrial nurses be able to work without supervision.
  
  
• Wilmarth v. City of Santa Rosa, (DC NCalif), 7 AD Cases 1131, 10/1/1996
  
  Summary: City senior clerk typist's carpal tunnel syndrome was temporary disability under ADA, where she was cleared by her doctors to return to full clerical duties approximately two years after onset of her condition, and she might have been cured even sooner had she not repeatedly refused treatment locally.