Source: http://www.williamgoren.com/blog/tag/light-duty/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 23:30:42+00:00

Document:
What does an employer do if an employee can’t or will not get a doctor’s certification for accommodations/ when does an employer have the right to ask for medical documentation?
Answer: The employer has a perfect right to ask for reasonable documentation with respect to any request for accommodation. The key is the interactive process, and failure of an employee to engage in the interactive process means they are no longer otherwise qualified per the ADA. So, I would make it clear that you are attempting to work with the individual and that it is important for them to engage in the interactive process. Let them know that failure to engage in the interactive process may mean that they are no longer qualified under the ADA. Keep the interactive process collaborative rather than adversarial whenever possible.
A person uses up all of their FMLA leave, what does an employer do now?
Answer: A colleague of mine, Jeff Nowak, has a blog, now in my blogroll, focusing entirely on the FMLA. He wrote an excellent piece on this subject, which can be found here. Also, check out my blog entry on Severson, which can be found here.
If a company has a rule that they do not give out vacation time for let’s say six months after starting to work, must the employer grant vacation time anyway to accommodate a person with a disability?
Answer: One of the myths about the ADA is that it doesn’t apply to people on probation. It most certainly does. Further, if the person has just started work at a new employer, then the FMLA won’t apply either regardless of the number of employees the employer has. So, the key here is the interactive process and looking at whether the person can do the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodations. Consider whether attendance is necessary to perform the essential functions of the job per this blog entry. Also, be sure to consider how your jurisdiction deals with mandatory reassignment, such as discussed in this blog entry. Finally, be sure to check out what the Job Accommodation Network says about possible reasonable accommodations.
How important is recruitment and advertisement and documenting physical demands of the job?
Answer: It is important as this is one of the EEOC factors to consider when deciding what is an essential function of the job. The question wouldn’t just apply to physical demands but to other kinds of demands as well, such as mental ones.
A person is out on workers compensation and returned to work with an adjusted modified work schedule being requested, is that a reasonable accommodation?
Answer: The key here is the interactive process. An employer does not have the obligation to create light-duty positions if they don’t generally offer those light-duty positions. Also, definitely want to look at the essential functions of the job and whether they can be performed with or without reasonable accommodations. Hiring a person to do an essential function of an employee’s job is not a reasonable accommodation. That said, don’t forget that the question is whether the employee can perform the essential functions of the job WITH or without reasonable accommodations.
When does a reasonable accommodation become unreasonable?
Answer: A reasonable accommodation is whatever gets the person with a disability to the same starting line as a person without a disability. So, be creative! Under title I of the ADA, an accommodation becomes unreasonable when it constitutes either a financial or logistical undue hardship. A financial undue hardship is very difficult to show since the vast majority of accommodations do not cost the employer anything. Those accommodations costing the employer something are not expensive, generally $500-$1400. Further, it is the entire business that is looked to when deciding undue financial hardship. With respect to logistical undue hardship, the best way to think of it is whether the accommodation would fundamentally alter the nature of the operations of the business.
What does the employer do if it is a third-party informing the employer of an employee’s disability and not the employee?
Answer: Disability related information cannot be kept in regular personnel file, rather it must be kept in a separate confidential file. The question I have is whether there are any work performance issues. If not, keep the information in mind should the situation arise later. If there are work performance issues, then you can ask the employee if there is anything you can do to help as performance seems to be trailing off and see how the employee responds. It is also helpful if you have an ADA/504 coordinator, which you are supposed to have anyway if you have more than 15 employees and take federal funds (Rehabilitation Act), or more than 50 employees (ADA).
Company has allowed an employee to not perform all essential functions of the job for many many years. Now, the company is demanding performance of all duties.
Answer: Under this scenario, it is clearly time to revisit just what the essential functions of the job really are. Remember, it is ultimately what is actually happening on the ground that dictates what the essential functions of the job are. Here, a strong argument exists that the job duties that have not been performed for many years are not essential and could be given to someone else. Finally, develop a system to periodically review the essential functions of the jobs with the focus on how the jobs are actually being performed.
What kind of documentation is needed for a service animal or support dog requested by an employee?
Answer: This one gets complicated. The rules for service dogs and support dogs may be very different depending upon the title of the ADA involved as we discussed here.
Who pays for an ASL interpreter?
Answer: The employer. It is possible that vocational rehabilitation services might be of assistance to a particular employee. Also, check out this blog entry.
If an employee is a minor, must the parents be involved?
Answer: If things are going well, it shouldn’t be an issue. If not, the first step would be to engage in the interactive process with the employee. Don’t forget about contacting the Job Accommodation Network. As a matter of preventive law, it might make sense to involve the parent if need be, but I would get the permission of the employee to do that first.
What happens if an employee refuses an employer’s reasonable accommodation offer?
Answer: Assuming an interactive process has occurred, the rejection of the reasonable accommodation offer would mean that the employee is no longer qualified under the ADA and loses his or her protection. Remember, the employee is not entitled to the reasonable accommodation they want, rather it is a negotiation process between the employer and the employee.
How much documentation can be requested to establish a disability?
Answer: Ask for reasonable documentation and do not make it overly intrusive. Using common sense will help here.
What if an employee in need of an accommodation cannot afford to pay for a doctor to assess his or her condition?
Answer: Use common sense and the interactive process. Are there free clinics the employee can go to?
When asking for a doctor’s certification, should the job description be attached every time?
Answer: As a matter of preventive law, I generally would as jobs can change over time.
Is teleworking a reasonable accommodation?
Answer: Check out this blog entry.
What are the rules for alcoholics and drug addicts?
Answer: They are not the same. Check out: this blog entry (“current” illegal drug user); this blog entry (medical marijuana); and this blog entry– including the comments- (Sarkisian-alcoholism).
Does ADA think enter into accommodating a person who is pregnant?
Answer: Yes. Check out this blog entry by my friend and colleague Robin Shea. Also, read this case, UPS v. Young.
What kind of doctor needs to offer the medical documentation?
Answer: Best approach would be to make sure the medical professional has knowledge of the individual and substantive knowledge of that disability. Use some common sense here.
How often should employees get trained on ADA issues?
Answer: As often as possible. Make sure, the person doing the training is knowledgeable. Also, I would say in new orientation for sure. After that, yearly for sure. Ideally, twice a year. You could have a roundtable at the six month mark and a more traditional and bigger training at the end of the year.
This entry is not legal advice!!!!!!
Feel free to contact me with any questions or to discuss any training needs that you might have.
Today’s case is Severson v. Heartland Woodcraft, Inc., a case from the Seventh Circuit decided September 20, 2017. The blogosphere has lit up with it, and I thought I could add my own spin to it even though several bloggers have done a real nice job talking about it. As is usual, the case is divided into categories and they are: facts; court’s reasoning; and takeaways. Of course, the reader is free to focus on any or all of the sections. Before moving on, for Jewish readers, I want to wish them a happy and healthy new year, and if they are fasting, a good fast on Yom Kippur this Saturday.
From 2006 to 2013, the plaintiff worked for the defendant, a fabricator of retail display fixtures, in a physically demanding job. In June 2013, the plaintiff took a 12 week medical leave under the FMLA in order to deal with serious back pain. On the last day of his leave, he underwent back surgery, which required that he remain off work for another 2 to 3 months. He asked the defendant to continue his medical leave, but by then had exhausted all of his FMLA entitlement. Critically, the company denied his request and terminated his employment, but invited him to reapply when he was medically cleared to work. About three months later, the plaintiff’s Dr. lifted all restrictions and cleared him to resume work, but the plaintiff did not reapply. Instead, he sued the defendant alleging discrimination for violating the ADA because the defendant did not provide the accommodation of a three month leave of absence beyond his FMLA leave. Plaintiff lost at the lower court level and appealed.
The term, “reasonable accommodation” is expressly limited to those measures enabling the employee to work. An employee needing long-term medical leave cannot work and therefore, is not a qualified individual under the ADA.
A multi-month leave of absence is beyond the scope of reasonable accommodation under the ADA.
Under 42 U.S.C. §12111(9), a reasonable accommodation may include a variety of things. The statute’s use of the phrase “may include,” means that the concept of reasonable accommodation is flexible and the listed examples are illustrative.
A reasonable accommodation is one allowing the employee with a disability to perform the essential functions of the employment position. If the proposed accommodation does not make it possible for the employee to perform a job, then the employee is not a qualified individual as defined by the ADA.
Putting together the definitions of qualified and reasonable accommodation, leads to the conclusion that a long-term leave of absence is not a reasonable accommodation.
Intermittent leave, a couple of days or even a couple of weeks, may, in appropriate circumstances, be similar to a part-time or modified work schedule, which are two of the examples listed in the statute. However, a medical leave spanning multiple months does not permit the employee to perform the essential functions of his job. In fact, the inability to work for multiple months removes a person from the class protected by the ADA, i.e. they are no longer qualified.
Long-term medical leave is the domain of the FMLA, which entitles employee to a total of 12 weeks of leave during any 12 month period for taking care of an individual or family member’s serious health condition, but the ADA applies only to those who can do the essential functions of the job.
The EEOC’s view that a long-term medical leave of absence qualifies as a reasonable accommodation where that leave: is of a definite time-limited duration; requested in advance; and likely to enable the employee to perform the position’s essential job functions when he returns simply doesn’t wash. It doesn’t wash because such an interpretation equates reasonable accommodation with effective accommodation; an approach rejected by the United States Supreme Court in US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett.
Adopting the EEOC approach transforms the ADA into a medical leave statute by in effect becoming an open-ended extension of FMLA. That is not a tenable approach to the term reasonable accommodation.
The plaintiff has the burden to prove that there were in fact vacant positions available at the time of his termination.
An employer is not required to create a new job or strip a current job of its principal duties to accommodate an employee with a disability.
The defendant did not have a policy of providing light-duty positions for employees suffering injuries on the job. While they did have an ad hoc system for temporary light duty assignments, the granting of such assignments were infrequent and generally lasted no longer than two days.
The critical fact here is that the plaintiff was invited to reapply when well but did not do so.
If I am an employer, I would go very slow with respect to adopting this case as policy. It may or may not be the law once the Supreme Court gets a hold of it, but it is certainly bad preventive law. As a matter of preventive law, the interactive process is key. I also would evaluate the situation utilizing the Samper decision, which we discussed here, in order to see whether attendance was an essential function of the job.
On the plaintiff’s side, early communication of leave needs to happen, and engaging in the interactive process is much preferred over waiting until the last possible minute to inform the employer of your leave needs.
Under this decision, the plaintiff has the burden of proof to show that there were vacant positions available at the time of his termination. This also gets into preventive law with respect to how to deal with the mandatory reassignment issue. Interestingly enough, the Seventh Circuit has a very strong policy for mandatory reassignment, which we discussed here. So, especially in the Seventh Circuit, while a multiple leave of absence means that the person with a disability is no longer qualified for that position, you can’t forget about the Seventh Circuit’s view on mandatory reassignment.
This is a specific rejection of the EEOC approach with respect to extending FMLA leave as a reasonable accommodation for a disability. Therefore, one wonders whether the EEOC will not seek an en banc rehearing. One also wonders if that fails if the EEOC would not seek an appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Regarding an appeal to the United States Supreme Court, the EEOC has not faired terribly well there, and the United States Supreme Court in employment matters has not been particularly friendly to persons with disabilities. So, one also wonders whether the EEOC, especially if a rehearing en banc is not successful, might not let the whole thing drop and focus on convincing other Circuits of their point of view.
If you as an employer are going to adopt an inflexible FMLA leave policy, termination after 12 weeks of leave, then you want to be sure that prior to termination you evaluate whether that individual can perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodations per the ADA even though the FMLA requires no reasonable accommodation analysis. You also want to make sure that you have fully evaluated any mandatory reassignment obligations existing in your Circuit before terminating.
Inflexible leave policy is just bad preventive law.
Pregnancy by itself is not a disability. However, if a pregnancy involves a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, then it is. You don’t think of pregnancy as being a physical or mental impairment. However, depending upon the pregnancy, it certainly can lead to a physical or mental impairment. The next question is whether a substantial limitation on one or more of life’s major activities is involved. This raises two other questions. First, what does it mean to be substantially limited? The EEOC in their final regulations defined substantially limits as being a matter of whether the person is substantially limited in a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population. Also, keep in mind that under the amendments to the ADA an impairment that is episodic or in remission is still considered a disability if it substantially limits a major life activity when active. Second, what is a major life activity? Under the amendments to the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2), major life activities can include many different things (this list is not exhaustive): 1) caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working; and 2) including the operation of major bodily functions, such as but not limited to: functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions (the EEOC in its final regulations at 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(I)(i),(ii) added the major life activities of sitting, reaching, and interacting with others). The EEOC in their guidance gives some examples of pregnancy related impairments that may substantially limit major life activities, such as but most certainly not limited to: pelvic inflammation, which may substantially limit the ability to walk; pregnancy related carpal tunnel syndrome, which may substantially limit the ability to lift or to perform manual tasks; disorders of the uterus or cervix necessitating certain physical restrictions to enable a full term pregnancy or resulting limitation following childbirth; pregnancy related sciatica, which may substantially limit musculoskeletal functions; gestational diabetes, which may substantially limit endocrine functions; and preeclampsia, which may substantially limit cardiovascular and circulatory functions.
In short, while pregnancy itself is not a disability, it is quite conceivable that pregnancy, the nature of it being what it is, will lead to a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.
2. There is no requirement under the ADA as amended that an impairment must last a particular length of time to be considered substantially limiting.
It is absolutely true that a temporary disability can be a disability under the ADA as I discussed in this blog entry. But you say, a disability has to last at least six months before it is considered a disability. That is not correct. The six-month provision only applies to allegations of being regarded as having a disability and in that situation the disability has to be both transitory and minor for the six-month rule to apply. If the disability does not satisfy both criteria, then the six-month rule, assuming allegations of regarded as, would not apply. If a person is alleging an actual disability, then the six-month rule doesn’t apply at all.
So what is an employer to do? Good question. First, as a preventive measure, the employer should strongly consider treating all disabilities, temporary or otherwise, as they would a permanent disability if that disability satisfies the actual disability prong of the ADA. Second, it has to be remembered that a person with a disability also needs to be qualified, i.e. capable of performing the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodations, so that needs to be factored in as well.
3. How a person became impaired is irrelevant to the determination of whether an impairment is a disability.
People get disabilities for all kinds of reasons. Some are born with them and others get them later. The only question under the ADA is not how they got the disability, but rather whether they have a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. The EEOC and Department of Justice regulations specifically state this as well.
4. A reasonable accommodation is having someone perform an aspect of the employee’s essential job functions.
The critical question here is whether inputting the data required for the summary report into the computer is an essential function of the job. If it is not, then having someone else complete the task is not a problem. However, if it is, the employer is under no obligation to have someone else do that job for the employee. That said, under the ADA that person has to be a able to do the job with or without reasonable accommodations. If this is an essential function of the job, then the employer has to consider if there is a reasonable accommodation available. One that comes to mind, is voice dictation, particularly since the reference to carpal tunnel implies a problem with typing. What other reasonable accommodations might work would involve getting more information pertaining to why did the doctors say she should avoid working at a computer keyboard. Was it because she couldn’t type, which is what the examples seem to imply, or was it because of the sitting, or something else?
5. An employer is required to waive a workplace policy if a person with a disability cannot satisfy it.
It should be pointed out that there is a contradiction between the questions and answers about the EEOC’s enforcement guidance on pregnancy discrimination related issues and the actual enforcement guidance. That is, the question-and-answer in example 25 suggests that an employer has to allow a water bottle at a workstation even where water bottles at workstations are prohibited by company policy for good reasons. On the other hand, in one of the examples in 22 of the enforcement guidance, it says that the employer arranged for a person who needed regular intake of water because of a pregnancy related kidney condition to have a table placed just outside the file room where the employee could easily access water. The former, assuming following the policy is an essential function of the job, would not be a reasonable accommodation while the latter would be.
6. Granting leave in addition to what an employer would normally provide under a sick leave policy for reasons related to disability is a reasonable accommodation.
Answer: Maybe. Wait a minute, I can’t answer a true or false question with maybe can I? Okay, then I guess I have to say probably false. There I go again. Okay, I am going to say false because it would depend on the circumstances. Whew…….
We know that the family medical leave act grants 12 weeks of leave to care for a serious medical health condition. We also know that leave beyond that amount of time may also be a reasonable accommodation providing a person can give a definite date of when they will return to work. We also know that one court has said that anything more than six months of leave total is unreasonable as a matter of law. The thing about family medical leave is that there are requirements before a person is eligible to take that leave. For one thing, they have to work a certain number of hours in a calendar year. For another, the employer has to have at least 50 employees within a certain radius. So, the EEOC is saying that if a person does not have FMLA coverage or does not have sufficient sick leave coverage, it is a reasonable accommodation to grant leave, which may be unpaid, to deal with the pregnancy related disability. I don’t think the answer is so simple (see the link in this paragraph above). This will definitely depend upon the facts and circumstances of the situation.
7. It is a reasonable accommodation to temporarily assign an employee with a disability to light duty.
However, that assumes that the employer has a light-duty system. They are under no obligation to create such a system if they don’t have one. Also, it assumes that the person cannot do the essential functions of his or her job with or without reasonable accommodations. Finally, it assumes that the person can do the essential functions of the light-duty position with or without reasonable accommodations. One last thing, the employer may want to consider reassigning that person to a job where she can do the essential functions of the position with or without reasonable accommodation rather than a light-duty position (see the discussion of this blog entry).
The EEOC says in their enforcement guidance that if a pregnant employee needs light-duty (temporary work less physically demanding than her normal duties), the employer is required under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act to provide it because an employer cannot treat pregnant workers differently from employees were similar in their ability or inability to work based on the cause of their limitations. This I find terribly problematic. What this arguably says is that if you have a pregnant employee who does not have a disability, light-duty may still be demanded under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act because light-duty might be required in that situation if the person has a disability. If this is the reasoning, this is very bizarre. It is possible that this is not what is intended at all because the example that the EEOC mentions is that an employer may not deny light-duty to a pregnant employee based on a policy limiting light-duty to employees with on-the-job injuries. If the example is what the EEOC is trying to address by the confusing language, then I see no problem with it. Since the ADA does not care a hoot about how a person got a disability, I never understood policies that treat people differently depending upon how they got the disability and the same should go for pregnancy. Unfortunately, the literal reading of the language seem to suggest something else. At a minimum, this language creates a very confusing distinction between pregnancies and disabilities (I recognize that considering how broadly disability is defined under the amendment to the ADA the distinction may be more theoretical than practical. That said, the language is terribly confusing).
9. The EEOC enforcement guidance on pregnancy discrimination related issues is likely to be adopted by the courts.
I believe the answer is false for several reasons, though I am hedging with probably since you never know what courts are going to do. First, when it comes to enforcement guidances, they have not gone through the proper rulemaking process. As a result, the courts are free to use them or not and many times they choose not to (for example, the Supreme Court in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002), specifically rejected EEOC enforcement guidances in reaching their decision. True, the amendments to the ADA specifically overruled this decision, but the point remains that when it comes to EEOC enforcement guidances, a court is free to accept or reject them as they wish because they have not gone through the proper rulemaking process. Second, some of the things in the guidances are problematic, as discussed here and by my colleagues mentioned above, and that may give courts pause. Third, this enforcement guidance was not adopted unanimously. In fact, it was only on a narrow 3-2 decision that it was adopted. Finally, the Supreme Court of the United States recently granted certiorari on a case where disability discrimination in the context of pregnancy could very well could come up.
In summary, I never liked guidances, with one exception. Guidances to my mind are often a crutch for attorneys and prevent deeper level reasoning. They also can make things unnecessarily confusing and promote even more litigation. With respect to what was discussed in this blog entry, I would expect both to become true. At any rate, dealing with pregnancy just got a lot more complicated.

References: v. 
 v. 
 §12111
 v. 
 § 12102
 § 1630
 v.