Opinion ID: 2982841
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Banks’s proposed accommodations

Text: Dr. Burns’s letter sets out proposed reasonable accommodations based on Banks’s condition: Ms. LaShaunna Banks has been my patient for many years. She has a medical condition that may begin suddenly at work so she will require immediate treatment with medications. She may need 15-30 minutes of rest during the work day in order for her to take her medications and allow time for medication to be effective. If the medications do not resolve the condition promptly, then she may be required to leave the work site. Also, if she is required to take other sedating medications prior to work, the she may be unable to work that day; however if the medication side effects resolve, she may be able to return to work, but at a later hour during the day. -12- No. 14-5486 Banks v. Bosch Rexroth Corp. Unfortunately, her condition is exacerbated by various smells and chemicals. She should avoid exposure to accrolube and toluene. She should be allowed to separate herself from employees that overuse perfumes, cologne, and scented lotions. When she actually has an episode of her condition, she should have limited exposure to other strong chemicals and smells. To assist her in avoiding these chemicals and smells, please allow Ms. Banks to use her fan at the work site for ventilation of her area. Finally, please limit her exposure to the paint booth for only one hour. If needed, she could return back to the paint area after she has been in a nonchemical location for at least two hours. R. 33-3, PageID 484. At the summary judgment stage, the district court focused on two of the proposed accommodations in Dr. Burns’s letter, and ruled (1) that the proposed accommodation that Banks might be “required to leave the worksite” when her medications do not resolve her migraines “promptly” (within 15-30 minutes) fails as a matter of law, and (2) that Banks had failed to meet her burden of production concerning the accommodation that “[s]he should avoid exposure to accrolube and toluene.” R. 70, PageID 1384-85. Toluene is confined mainly to Bosch’s paint room, but AccroLube is used throughout Bosch’s manufacturing process, and is present in most areas of the plant. Banks bears the initial burden of proposing an accommodation and showing that a given accommodation is “objectively reasonable.” See Kleiber, 485 F.3d at 870. She concedes that being present at work was an essential function of her job. Because Dr. Burns’s proposed accommodation gave Banks the ability to leave work at her own discretion on 15 to 30 minutes’ notice any time she felt her medicine was not being effective, the district court reasoned that the accommodation was not objectively reasonable as required under the law. The district court’s conclusion on this point is in accord with our holding that “[a]n employee who cannot meet the attendance requirements of the job at issue cannot be considered a qualified individual protected by the ADA.” Gantt v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co., 143 F.3d 1042, 1047 (6th Cir. 1998). Other -13- No. 14-5486 Banks v. Bosch Rexroth Corp. courts have similarly noted that an unlimited ability to leave work is not reasonable. See, e.g., Pickens v. Soo Line R.R. Co., 264 F.3d 773,778 (8th Cir. 2001). On appeal Banks argues that this accommodation was a request for intermittent FMLA leave rather than a request for an unfettered right to leave work at any time. The FMLA contemplates the need for unforeseen emergency leave, and we have found that “[W]hen the approximate time of the needed leave is unforeseeable, the eligible employee should give the employer notice of the need for the leave ‘as soon as practicable under the facts and circumstances of the particular case.’” Brenneman v. MedCentral Health Sys., 366 F.3d 412, 421 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 825.303(a)). We have also held, however, that “inability to satisfy basic attendance requirements” and “excessive absenteeism” are bases for finding that a particular disabled individual is not a qualified individual with respect to the ADA’s framework. Id. at 418-19. Dr. Burns’s proposed accommodation contains no objective standard of evaluation or limitations on Ms. Banks’s ability to leave work if she experiences a migraine. While there may be circumstances in which an accommodation permitting an employee to exercise discretion regarding her work hours would be reasonable, the record here does not support such a determination. Reynolds, Bosch’s Human Resources Manager, explained that the accommodation was unreasonable and would impose an “undue hardship” on Bosch because it would give Banks “the ability to basically come and go as she pleased,” and that this was disruptive and unduly hard on Bosch because: [W]e have production lines. You have people scheduled. We have orders that need to be completed, and if you don’t know what your manning’s going to be because the person takes some medication and then has to leave, you know, you’re not going to get that production out that day. And it’s not like we have people to move around . . . If it happened, you know now and then, that’s one -14- No. 14-5486 Banks v. Bosch Rexroth Corp. thing, but with the frequency that it happened, it’s pretty hard to accommodate that. R. 49-8, PageID 815-16. Reynolds indicated that in 2011 and 2012, Banks was having migraines at work at least weekly, and at times daily. Here, where the parties agree that regular attendance was an essential function of Banks’s job, the district court committed no error by holding that an accommodation giving Banks an unfettered right to leave would be unreasonable as a matter of law, particularly since she had already exhausted her FMLA leave. Because the district court correctly found that a necessary component of Banks’s requested accommodation—the ability to leave work as specified—was unreasonable, we need not consider the district court’s rejection of the additional requested accommodation regarding AccroLube and toluene exposure.