In news other than the Coronavirus, an employer successfully defended a lawsuit alleging it did not properly accommodate a disability. Early this month the Sixth Circuit handed down a ruling upholding a lower court’s summary judgement in favor of the employer. The decision held that in this case the employee’s actions leading up to his lawsuit amounted to him erroneously trying to use the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) as a weapon to pressure his employer into granting an unnecessary accommodation.
The Plaintiff was injured on the job. Both parties agree to this. Plaintiff requested an accommodation that would allow him to work from home three days a week. The employer requested medical documentation to support the request, which is their right. Plaintiff balked a bit but did eventually provide a doctor’s note. The note, however, did not specify Plaintiff needed to work from home. While the employer was deciding what to do, it offered to put Plaintiff on flexible hours instead. The Plaintiff then quit.
Plaintiff’s lawsuit alleged failure to accommodate and constructive discharge.
This Sixth Circuit reviewed the facts of the case against the ADA’s requirement that an employer try to reasonably accommodate an employee’s disability. The Court found that although the employer balked at the requested work from home accommodation, the employer was never given the chance to find and propose an appropriate reasonable accommodation before the employee resigned. Under the applied law in this case, it is the Plaintiff’s burden to prove a reasonable accommodation could be found. The Court believed, based upon the lack of medical documentation provided to the employer, that the accommodation the Plaintiff sought was more out of convenience than necessity.
Employers are reminded that during an ADA reasonable accommodation analysis and determination the employer has the right to request medical documentation supporting the requested accommodation.
As to the constructive discharge complaint the court reviewed the circumstances leading up to the employee’s resignation. To prove the employer constructively discharged him in retaliation of the ADA compliant, Plaintiff has to show the employer fostered “working conditions would have been so difficult or unpleasant that a reasonable person in the employee’s shoes would have felt compelled to resign.” (Talley v Family Dollar Stores of Ohio. Inc. 542 F. 3d 1099 (6th Circuit 2008)
Although many employees feel they cannot stay in employment due to their emotional discomfort arising from whatever circumstances compel them to quit, intolerability rising the level of constructive discharge is a high legal standard to meet. Plaintiff offered several examples of how his circumstances at work were made uncomfortable, however the court felt none of them individually or together rose to the level of objectively intolerable.
The Sixth Circuit was compelled to review certain case law against the constructive discharge circumstances in this case and commented Plaintiff may have had a case if the evidence showed the employer had more subjective intent to terminate Plaintiff. The Court stated that Plaintiff would have to show a “nexus between their disability and the intolerable workplace.” This he did not do.
On appeal, Plaintiff (and more to the point most likely his legal counsel) brought up other claims and arguments that the Sixth Circuit noted were not in the original complaint and could not be brought on an appeal from summary judgement.
Overall, this case demonstrates if an employee does not properly follow through on their reasonable accommodation request and precipitously quits without a real reason(s) that arguably shows the employer was actually trying to get him or her to quit, the Courts will not abide its use as a recourse to their impatience and lack of reasonable accommodation follow through.
Source: Kassi Tschankpa v. Ascena Retail Group, Inc. No. 19-3291 (3/6/2020)