Opinion ID: 199552
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Essential Functions and Reasonable Accommodation

Text: 17 To obtain relief under the ADA, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: 18 (1) he was disabled within the meaning of the Act; (2) he was a qualified individual, i.e. able to perform the essential functions of the position with or without reasonable accommodation; and (3) he was discharged because of his disability. 19 Ward, 209 F.3d at 33. The State concedes that appellant meets the statutory definition of disability. The dispute centers on the second inquiry, whether he was a qualified individual under the ADA. 12 The particular question we face here is whether appellant can perform the essential functions of the position if given the accommodation he seeks, working at home. The district court concluded as a matter of law that he could not, based on the State's evidence that several important functions performed by claims adjudicators could not be accomplished in appellant's home. Appellant contends that the State both underestimates what reasonably can be done in a home setting and improperly characterizes as essential certain functions that require an office setting. 20 We recently have confirmed that the plaintiff bears the burden of proposing an accommodation that would enable him to perform his job effectively and is, at least on the face of things, reasonable. Phelps, 251 F.3d at 26; Reed, 244 F.3d at 258. This necessarily entails a showing that the accommodation would effectively enable [him] to perform [his] job, Reed, 244 F.3d at 259. As a starting point, therefore, appellant must offer evidence that he can perform the essential functions of a claims adjudicator at home. This turns out to be both the beginning and the end of our analysis. 21 An essential function is a fundamental job duty of the position at issue. See Ward, 209 F.3d at 34; 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1). The term does not include marginal tasks, but may encompass individual or idiosyncratic characteristics of the job, Ward, 209 F.3d at 34 (quoting Laurin v. Providence Hosp., 150 F.3d 52, 56-57, 59 n.6 (lst Cir. 1998)). In the absence of evidence of discriminatory animus, courts generally give substantial weight to the employer's judgment as to what functions are essential. Id.; see also 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8). Other evidence also is relevant, including: written job descriptions, consequences of not requiring the function, work experience of past incumbents, and work experience of current incumbents. Ward, 209 F.3d at 34 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)). 22 The record contains both a Task Statement for the claims adjudicator position at a processing center and a list labeled Essential Functions of a Claims Adjudicator, the latter of which is simply a shortened version of the former. The task statement contains nine items, and six of them are identified as essential functions in the other document. The first three essential tasks generally describe the job of adjudicating claims - what we shall call the adjudicator function 13 -- and the other three involve the provision of information and guidance to a variety of individuals both inside and outside the Division - in our shorthand, the advisor function. 14 23 Appellant focuses on the adjudicator function and maintains that there is at least a factual dispute as to whether it can be performed by him at his home. He plausibly contends that he could conduct interviews by telephone at home, write decisions, and enter all necessary data into a personal computer. Although the State has raised concerns about the confidentiality of records that might be needed in the decision-making process, its counsel acknowledged at oral argument that that concern perhaps could be met if it were the only obstacle. Indeed, it appears that other Department of Labor decision-makers routinely work at home with confidential documents, albeit not on a full time basis. Moreover, there is no evidence that the benefits decisions must be made on extremely tight deadlines, and gaining access to records kept at the office or within the Division's secure computer system would thus seem logistically feasible. 15 24 Although adjudicating claims may be the core function of appellant's former position -- hence its claims adjudicator title -- the advisor function looms large in both the written task statement and the testimonial evidence presented by the State. In a lengthy affidavit, Boyett described the transition of the Division's services from decentralized field offices, such as the one in which appellant worked in Rockland, to the call center model, which consolidated the Division's operations in three offices serving a statewide clientele. In the call center system, unemployment claims are submitted via telephone and routed automatically to one of the three centers in a manner intended to equalize workloads among the locations. 25 Claims adjudicators are the most senior, non-supervisory technical resource at the call centers, and one function resulting from that experienced status is to serve as Adjudicator of the Day approximately once a week. Boyett explained the role as follows: 26 Adjudicators of the Day are the primary people responsible for trouble-shooting and problem resolution for that day. Their names are posted in visible locations within the call centers so that claims staff know who to go to with questions and problems. They remain accessible so that they can help other employees at the other employees' workstations if needed. For example, claims adjudicators might help another employee conduct research on the computer database, plug into an employee's telephone to assist with a telephone call, or take a portion of a call at their own workstation to resolve a problem before transferring the call back to the other employee or terminating the call. 27 Boyett further stated that, since the change to call centers, claims adjudicators have more often served as a technical resource for other employees because the number of supervisors was reduced from seventeen to six statewide, making them less available for individual questions. Although some of this assistance could be provided by phone, it is primarily provided in person because it usually requires jointly reviewing written materials, including forms, documents, law sections, primary commission cases and claim cards. Claims adjudicators also participate in the technical training of claims staff at the call centers. 16 28 In essence, Boyett's affidavit depicts claims adjudicators as key players on a team whose function is to provide information and assistance to the public in utilizing the unemployment insurance system. The system often relies on on-the-spot collaborative efforts among the call center's various employees, and claims adjudicators are particularly vital participants because of their high level of technical skill. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(2)(ii) (a job function may be considered essential because of the limited number of employees available among whom the performance of that job function can be distributed). The State's position is that, by definition, the advisor function includes training and joint problem-solving that could not be accomplished effectively by a claims adjudicator based outside of the call center. See EEOC Enforcement Guidance: Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 1999 WL 33103142, at  n.93 (March 1, 1999) (Courts that have rejected working at home as a reasonable accommodation focus on evidence that personal contact, interaction, and coordination are needed for a specific position.) (citing cases). 17 29 In response to the State's evidence that the advisor function is an essential part of a claims adjudicator's job, appellant offers no specific facts showing that this role either is not essential or could be performed by him at home. He emphasizes a statement made by Gail Thayer, director of the Bureau of Unemployment Compensation (which includes the Division), that if the law requires it, the [State] could restructure Mr. Kvorjak's job to enable him to work at home. Thayer did not state, however, that the resulting position would include all of a claims adjudicator's essential functions, and, indeed, she testified at her deposition that she did not, in fact, envision that such a restructuring would retain all of the important elements of appellant's job. The law does not require an employer to accommodate a disability by foregoing an essential function of the position or by reallocating essential functions to make other workers' jobs more onerous. Feliciano, 160 F.3d at 785; see also Phelps, 251 F.3d at 26; Laurin, 150 F.3d at 56, 60. 30 Appellant's other contentions regarding the State's evidence are no more forceful. He complains that numerous functions listed as essential in the State's summary judgment materials were both new to the case and peripheral to the claims adjudicator's job, and their legitimacy must be resolved by a fact finder. The simple response to the tardiness claim is that the advisor role derives directly from the list of duties in the Task Statement, 18 which was used as an exhibit before the MHRC. Although the Boyett affidavit spells out in detail for the first time the many ways in which a claims adjudicator is expected to perform the advisor function, the possibility that a particular advisory task is unimportant or reasonably could be performed at an individual's home does not undermine the State's position that the claims adjudicator's in-office role as educator/trainer/advisor is essential. 31 Appellant offers no evidence suggesting that, despite the written task statement and the departmental expectations outlined in the Boyett affidavit, the advisor function in actuality comprises an insignificant portion of a claims adjudicator's job. His own knowledge of the position is limited to his experience working in a field office and thus provides an insufficient basis to rebut Boyett's assertion that the advisor function became more important after the consolidation of services in call centers. 19 Appellant could have, but did not, depose current claims adjudicators about their duties. 32 Finally, appellant tries to make much of the fact that two Department of Labor employees have been permitted to work at home. The evidence shows significantly distinguishable circumstances: (1) the employees, who both experienced allergic-type reactions to substances in their office building, are being permitted to work at home only until the Department is able to construct a clean room at the workplace; and (2) neither is a claims adjudicator -- one's job is to organize files and the other is a tax specialist whose primary duty is to call employers who owe unemployment taxes. The fact that these employees work at home lends no support to appellant's contention that he could perform the essential functions of a claims adjudicator at home.