At times overtime is required in order to meet customer demand. An HR issue can arise when an employee presents a doctor’s note stating that the employee can only work eight hours per day and no overtime. Since ADA or FMLA may apply, how does the employer respond to this situation?
In the case of Jiles v. Wright Medical Technology, Inc., No. H-16-2080 (SD Texas, March 13, 2018), Jiles started working as a WMT delivery specialist on May 28, 2013. His job responsibilities as a delivery specialist include making “pickups and deliveries of medical implants and instruments to and from local hospitals, surgery centers, clinics/doctor’s offices, the airport, bus station[s], and other locations for expedited shipments.” The job also required being a liaison between the field office and customers, assisting in the local warehouse with processing kits, and assisting with inventory.
Jiles would make 12-14 deliveries and pickups in a day. He also worked overtime, which WMT considered a “principle responsibility” of the job when “required to accommodate emergency situations and facilitate changing schedules.” The job description specifically stated that overtime was an essential function of the job.
Around a year later, April 4, 2014, Jiles was involved in an automobile accident while working. As a result of the accident, Jiles suffered “a cervical strain on his shoulder and upper arm,” contusions on his face, scalp, and neck, and elevated blood pressure. The doctor said that Jiles was unable to drive a company vehicle for two weeks. He also started a workers’ compensation claim.
Allegedly, Jiles and his supervisor disagreed as to light duty opportunities at the company and Jiles was placed on FMLA leave and short-term disability from April 7, 2014, through May 8, 2014. Jiles returned to work on or about May 8, 2014, with no restrictions. However, issues did come up. On May 28, 2014, Jiles saw a physician at Concentra Medical Centers at WMT’s request. The doctor informed Jiles that Jiles’s blood pressure was high. Accordingly, Jiles told his boss and hub manager about the high blood pressure, and they told him to continue working. In early June 2014, Jiles saw his own physician, who determined Jiles had high blood pressure and needed to rest for two weeks. Jiles commenced two weeks of short-term disability, which was a paid leave of absence. He did not return in two weeks and extended his leave.
The human resources department at WMT emailed Jiles to inform him that his short-term disability benefits would be exhausted as of July 21, 2014, and that if he was unable to return to work the leave would be non-paid FMLA leave. Jiles responded that he would like to use his remaining sick leave for July 24th. His being out caused friction at the workplace. Other drivers had to pick up for him.
WMT accommodated Jiles for additional time off to recover. He came back August 4th but with restrictions. Jiles could not work overtime or work in heat above 90 degrees or below 32 degrees. However, the doctor specifically stated that Jiles could resume the work capacity profile for a WMT delivery specialist.
WMT did not permit Jiles to return to work on August 4. Management had “a significant safety concern regarding [Jiles’s] ability to perform the essential functions of [his] current position.” In the meantime, HR advised Jiles that his FMLA leave would be exhausted on August 20th.
HR and Jiles then discussed accommodations, but WMT ultimately determined that there was no delivery specialist position that worked in a climate-controlled environment and that there were no vacant positions at the Houston hub for which Jiles was qualified. He was terminated on August 27, 2014.
Jiles sued WMT for among other things ADA discrimination and for retaliation for taking FMLA leave. After discovery, WMT filed for summary judgement stating essentially that Jiles was not qualified to perform the essential functions of the job with or without a reasonable accommodation.
The court ruled in favor of WMT. First, the job description had identified the essential function of the job, which required overtime. Further, the court reviewed the job descriptions with what was actually being done on the job and found that the requirements are legitimate. Since Jiles could not perform the overtime, he was not qualified under the ADA. As a result, his FMLA retaliation claim also failed since he could not perform the required function of the job.
The takeaway is the WMT followed the correct process to identify the essential functions of the job clearly in the job description. The company also had interactive, documented discussions for a reasonable accommodation, if possible. The court took this all into account and agreed with WMT that overtime was an essential function of the job, and Jiles’ doctor’s note disqualified him for that function. Moreover, the company ensured that any issue with returning to work occurred after the FMLA ran out. This case is a good learning example of how proper documentation protected the company from liability.
Source. Kiles v. Wright Medical Technology, Inc. No. H-16-2080 (SD Texas, March 13, 2018)