Source: https://www.californiaemploymentlawreport.com/2018/03/can-overtime-essential-function-job/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 00:54:41+00:00

Document:
Home » Can overtime be an essential function of a job?
Can overtime be an essential function of a job?
The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) makes it an “unlawful employment practice” “[f]or an employer, because of … physical disability … of any person … to discharge the person from … employment.” (Gov. Code § 12940, subd. (a)).
Similarly, the Federal ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against any “qualified individual on the basis of disability.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112. In evaluating discrimination claims under both the ADA and FEHA, courts apply the McDonnell Douglas three-part burden-shifting framework. Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, 540 U.S. 44, 49 (2003) (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973)); Guz v. Bechtel Nat’l, Inc., 8 P.3d 1089, 1113 (Cal.2000). Under the McDonnell Douglas test, the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination. If established, then the burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate a “legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason” for the challenged action. Finally, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to prove that the employer’s asserted reason is pretextual.
29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3); see also Cal. Gov’t Code 12926(f)(2). In making this determination, a jury will likely look at the job advertisement and the job description for the position at issue. The jury would also likely review past job performance to see if the employee or others in similar job position routinely were required to work overtime. In addition, if the employee works in the position and as an accommodation initially the employer attempts to accommodate the work restriction of no overtime, did the employee perform well? Were there any complaints from customers? Was all work completed?
Many courts have held that an employer’s requirement that the employee must be able to work overtime can be an essential function of a job. Therefore, if the employee is unable to work overtime, the employee cannot assert a disability discrimination claim. For example, in Rincon v. Am. Fed’n of State, Cnty, & Mun. Employees (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2013) 2013 WL 4389460 the court granted summary judgment where the plaintiff was unable to work extended hours, which was an essential function of her union organizer job. Also, in Davis v. Florida Power & Light Co. (11th Cir. 2000) 205 F.3d 1301, 1305–1306 the court found that where mandatory overtime work was an essential function of plaintiff employee’s position, summary judgment was properly granted for the employer, an electrical company, on the employee’s disability discrimination claim (“overtime is the tool that gets that work done”). In Tjernagel v. Gates Corp. (8th Cir. 2008) 533 F.3d 666, 673, summary judgment was properly granted in favor of the employer where plaintiff was unable to perform essential function of overtime, which was an explicit requirement according to job description.
The analysis above should make it clear to employers that written and accurate job descriptions are essential. Job descriptions should be carefully drafted and updated on a regular basis so that they can be utilized in establishing the essential duties of a job in disability litigation.

References: § 12940
 § 12112
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1630
 v. 
 v. 
 v.