Opinion ID: 2794553
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: KCRA Failure to Accommodate

Text: The Kentucky Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination because of disability against “a qualified individual” with a disability, K.R.S. § 344.040(1)(a)1, 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a), and defines “discrimination” to include “not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability”. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A). Claims premised upon an employer’s failure to offer a reasonable accommodation necessarily involve direct evidence of discrimination. Parks alleges that UPS discriminated against him “on the basis of his disability by failing to provide reasonable accommodation to his disability, including, but not limited to, the refusal to allow him medical leave to seek medical care for his medical condition.” (Complaint para. 27). UPS acknowledges that it did not accommodate Parks’s request for FMLA leave to have neck surgery, but argues that it was not obligated to make such accommodations because Parks was not “otherwise qualified” for his position due to his performance errors. In a direct evidence claim brought under the ADA, the employee bears the burden of establishing that he or she is disabled, but “otherwise qualified” for the position, either without accommodation, or with a proposed reasonable accommodation. Kleiber v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 485 F.3d 862, 869 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing Hedrick v. Western Reserve Care Sys., 355 F.3d 444, 452 1 The language of the KCRA provides the same protections as the ADA, so courts use the federal framework to analyze claims under the state statute. Bryson v. Regis Corp., 498 F.3d 561, 574 (6th Cir. 2007). 18 No. 14-5609, Parks v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions (6th Cir. 2004)). The burden then shifts to the employer to prove that the proposed accommodation imposes an undue hardship upon the employer. For purposes of this appeal, UPS does not dispute that Parks is disabled. The issue is whether Parks was otherwise qualified for the position with his requested leave to have surgery, and if so, whether that request for leave imposed an undue hardship on UPS. Parks was on a final written performance warning when he committed two additional performance errors—one before and one after his alleged accommodation request. UPS contends that Parks cannot satisfy his burden of proving that leave for surgery is an objectively reasonable accommodation because granting that accommodation request would have permitted him to use the request as a shield to avoid accountability for his performance errors. Employers are not required to ignore performance errors committed by disabled employees who have requested an accommodation, so long as those performance errors do not relate to the employee’s disability. Whitfield v. Tennessee, 639 F.3d 253, 261-62 (6th Cir. 2011). In this case, Parks has offered no evidence that his final two performance errors were related to his disability. Parks’s request for leave as an accommodation was not reasonable because it would have required UPS to forgive the performance error committed before the request and ignore the error committed shortly after the request, neither of which is required by law. The district court’s grant of summary judgment on Parks’s FCRA failure to accommodate claim is affirmed. 19 No. 14-5609, Parks v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions