Source: https://www.weil.com/articles/reasonable-accommodations-for-employees-suffering-from-depression
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 22:20:21+00:00

Document:
The toxic brew of increasingly long hours and high stress should be prompting more conversations in the workplace about mental illness. A 2016 study by the American Bar Association found that, within our own profession, 28% of lawyers struggle with depression. Sadly, it is the recent high profile suicides of public figures, including Kate Spade and Anthony Bourdain, which have catapulted this topic to a more prominent positon in discussions of employee wellness and corporate culture.
Tragically, as in those cases, a person suffering from depression sometimes will fail to share his\her problems with others. In other cases, however, people suffering from depression do seek help. And in a subset of those cases, they will tell their employer in order to receive a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Employers, therefore, must be educated on this topic and prepared to appropriately accommodate their employees suffering from depression in order to meet their obligations under the ADA.
In 1990, Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) to outlaw employment discrimination against individuals with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). Later, Congress expanded the ADA with the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”), which broadened the ADA’s scope and reinforced Congress’s “comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” Id. § 12101(b)(1).
The failure to provide a reasonable accommodation to a disabled, but otherwise qualified, person in the workplace is one of the forms of unlawful employment discrimination encompassed by the ADA. Id. § 12112(b)(5)(A). In order to establish a claim for failure to reasonably accommodate, a plaintiff must show: (1) she is disabled under the ADA; (2) she could perform the essential functions of the job with or without a reasonable accommodation (i.e., she was “otherwise qualified”); and (3) the employer, despite knowing of her disability, did not reasonably accommodate it. Id.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has stated that the passage of the ADAAA shifted the focus of the disability discrimination inquiry from whether the employee has a “disability” within the meaning of the statute, to whether the employer lived up to its obligation to reasonably accommodate her. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(i)-(iii). Indeed, the definition of “disability” is “construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage . . . .” Id. § 1630.1(c)(4). Consequently, following the passage of the ADAAA, many courts have concluded, even on limited records, that depression can constitute a disability. See, e.g., Rubano v. Farrell Area Sch. Dist., 991 F. Supp. 2d 678, 692 (W.D. Pa. 2014).
Hostettler appealed, and the Sixth Circuit reversed.The court first noted that essential functions are those that would fundamentally alter a job if eliminated. It observed that, in determining whether something is an essential function, courts should consider the amount of time spent on that function, the employer’s judgment, written job descriptions prepared before the job was posted, and the consequences to the employer of the employee not performing the function. The court also said that “[r]egular, in-person attendance is an essential function’ of most jobs.” Id. at 854 (alteration in original) (quoting EEOC v. Ford Motor Co., 782 F.3d 753, 762–63 (6th Cir. 2015)).
Nevertheless, the court held that whether full-time work was an essential function of Hostettler’s job was a question of fact for the jury. The court explained, “[o]n its own . . . full-time presence at work is not an essential function. An employer must tie time-and-presence requirements to some other job requirement.” Id. at 856. Hostettler presented evidence that she could perform her other job requirements without working full-time. Accordingly, Wooster could not prove as a matter of law that full-time work was an essential job requirement, and the district court’s grant of summary judgment was improper.
Still, another court rejected a failure to accommodate claim on different facts. In Echevarria v. AstraZeneca Pharm. LP, 856 F.3d 119 (1st Cir. 2017), plaintiff Taymari Delgado Echevarría (“Delgado”) was a Hospital Specialist for AstraZeneca diagnosed with severe depression and extreme anxiety. She requested paid leave under the company’s short-term disability policy, which was initially granted for a month.
On the first score, the court highlighted that Delgado failed to effectively communicate to AstraZeneca the reasons why an additional year of leave would have enabled her to return to work and perform the essential functions of her job. Delgado never submitted any supporting medical documentation beyond a form from her doctor requesting more leave that would have shown AstraZeneca why additional leave was necessary and how it would have been effective. Next, the court dealt with the “even larger flaw in Delgado’s case,” that “the sheer length of the delay, when coupled with her prior five-month leave . . . jump[ed] off the page.” Id. at 130. Noting the burdens of such an extended leave on AstraZeneca, including “somehow covering the absent employee’s job responsibilities during the employee’s extended leave,” the court held that extending her leave another year would have been facially unreasonable. Id. at 131. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment.
Job Descriptions. Where appropriate and justified, employers should include regular attendance as an essential job function in written job descriptions, and explain why it is essential (for example, because employees work as part of a team, meet with customers, or use on-site equipment). Indeed, the Hostettler court favorably referenced employers that had done so in two other cases. In the first, a company’s call center tied full-time work requirements to a business need because, without a strict attendance policy, customers had to wait longer and other employees became overwhelmed fielding calls. Williams v. AT&T Mobility Servs. LLC, 847 F.3d 384, 387-88, 392 (6th Cir. 2017). In the second, the company specifically identified some of the plaintiff’s main job responsibilities that she could not perform from home. E.E.O.C. v. Ford Motor Co., 782 F.3d 753, 759 (6th Cir. 2015).
Be Proactive. Under the ADA, employers must provide qualified employees with reasonable accommodations, but not all accommodation requests are necessarily reasonable. Therefore, employers often must engage in the interactive process to determine the appropriate accommodation. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). In order to avoid liability for failure to engage in the interactive process, employers should proactively discuss accommodation requests with employees, suggest alternatives, and document their efforts. A court will look more favorably upon the employer that does so than the employer that rejects the employee’s proposals outright.
Reprinted with permission from the December 4, 2018 edition of the NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL © 2018 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited. ALMReprints.com – 877-257-3382 - reprints@alm.com.

References: § 12112
 § 12101
 § 12112
 § 1630
 § 1630
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1630