Opinion ID: 149024
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The MHRA and ADA Claims

Text: Kobus alleged that the College violated the ADA and the MHRA when it denied a leave of absence to reasonably accommodate his depression disability. Apart from one difference not relevant here, an MHRA claim proceeds the same way as does a claim under the ADA. Rask, 509 F.3d at 469. To establish a claim of disability discrimination under the ADA, it is the responsibility of the individual with a disability to inform the employer that an accommodation is needed. 29 C.F.R.App. § 1630.9, at 381 (July 2008 ed.); Wallin v. Minn. Dep't of Corrections, 153 F.3d 681, 689 (8th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1004, 119 S.Ct. 1141, 143 L.Ed.2d 209 (1999); Miller v. Nat'l Cas. Co., 61 F.3d 627, 629-30 (8th Cir.1995) (collecting cases). We affirm the dismissal of these claims for the reasons stated by the district court: Here, where the record contains no specific evidence that Kobus's limitations were apparent at work; where he repeatedly declined to reveal his diagnosis to his employer; where he expressed doubt about his ability to confirm his diagnosis with a doctor; and where he failed to affirmatively indicate an interest in pursuing FMLA leave after that option was suggested by his employer even after it was apparent that his alternatives were limitedthe Court concludes that this threshold has not been met. Kobus argues that Question 17, Answer A, in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's ADA Enforcement Guidance lists an employee's request for time off because he is depressed and stressed as sufficient to put the employer on notice that the employee is requesting reasonable accommodation. [7] None of our prior ADA notice cases cited the Enforcement Guidance as controlling. See Rask, 509 F.3d at 470-71; Wallin, 153 F.3d at 689; Miller, 61 F.3d at 629-30. Instead, those cases apply the requirement in the regulations that an employee inform the employer that an accommodation is needed. 29 C.F.R.App. § 1630.9, at 381 (July 2008 ed.); Wallin, 153 F.3d at 689. Moreover, we agree with the district court that the last sentence in Example A applies in this case: if the employee's need for accommodation is not obvious, the employer may ask for reasonable documentation concerning the employee's disability and functional limitations. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.