Source: https://www.ucbjournal.com/when-is-a-leave-of-absence-required-as-a-reasonable-accommodation-under-the-ada/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 16:14:37+00:00

Document:
Employers frequently face the situation where an employee seeks a leave of absence due to a medical condition, but the employee has either exhausted or is not eligible for leave under the Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Employers must determine when an additional unpaid leave of absence is required under the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) and how much leave is reasonable. The answer to this question can be very confusing, as the courts and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) have conflicting positions on this issue.
The EEOC explains its position in a resource document issued on May 9, 2016, titled “Employer-Provided Leave and the Americans with Disabilities Act.” This resource states that employees with disabilities must be provided with equal access to leave under an employer’s leave policy. However, the EEOC emphasizes that the ADA requires employers to provide unpaid leave to an employee with a disability as a reasonable accommodation if the employee requires it, and so long as it does not create an undue hardship for the employer. The ADA requires this even if the employer’s policies do not offer leave as an employee benefit, the employee is not eligible for leave under the employer’s policies, or the employee has exhausted the leave the employer provides as a benefit. However, reasonable accommodation requirements do not require employer to provide paid leave beyond what is provided as part of an employer’s paid leave policy. The EEOC further opines that all requests for leave from employment because of a medical condition must be treated as a request for a reasonable accommodation under the ADA, and employers must engage in the interactive process.
See Roberts v. Bd. of County Comm’rs., Kan., 691 F.3d 1211 (10thCir. 2012); Parker v. Columbia Pictures Indus., 204 F.3d 326 (2nd. Cir. 2000); Jarrell v. Hospital for Special Care, 626 F. App’x 308 (2ndCir. 2015); Silva v. City of Hidalgo, Tex., 575 F. App’s 419 (5thCir. 2014); Larson v. United Nat’l Foods West, Inc., 518 F. App’x 589 (9thCir. 2013); Santandreu v. Miami Dade Cty., 513 App’x 92 (11thCir. 2013); Hudson v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., 87 F.3d 1167, 1169 (10th Cir. 1996); Brannon v. Luco Mop Company, 521 F.3d 843, 849 (8th Cir. 2008).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.