Opinion ID: 885110
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reasonable Accommodations

Text: ¶ 35 At trial, Hafner presented testimony by Dr. Rudert that accommodations were available to reduce the risk of harm to Hafner. Dr. Rudert testified that Hafner could use knee pads, and could be trained to perform a climbing technique that puts more stress on the good knee and less stress on the bad knee. Further, the recently discovered job description of Unit Operator reveals that placing Hafner in the Unit Operator position, a position within the same department as the Helper position, may constitute a reasonable accommodation for Hafner's knee problem. Despite Dr. Rudert's testimony, however, the District Court failed to make any findings or conclusions concerning whether reasonable accommodations were available to Hafner and, if so, whether Conoco discharged its affirmative duty to make such reasonable accommodations. Hafner argues that the District Court's failure in this regard constitutes clear error. We agree. ¶ 36 An employer has an affirmative duty to make reasonable accommodations that are required by an otherwise qualified disabled person. In Reeves, we stated: Montana law requires employers to reasonably accommodate their employees if the employees are disabled or are regarded as such, unless the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the employer or endanger the health and safety of any person. Reeves, ¶ 40 (citing § 49-2-101(19)(b), MCA). See also Rule 24.9.606, ARM. An employer's duty to provide reasonable accommodations to disabled persons is an essential part of Montana's anti-discrimination statutes. Martinell, 268 Mont. at 309-10, 886 P.2d at 432. Upon the foregoing, we hold that the District Court erred in failing to make the necessary findings and conclusions concerning whether reasonable accommodations were available to Hafner and, if so, whether Conoco discharged its affirmative duty to make such reasonable accommodations.