Opinion ID: 197991
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Reason for Criado's termination

Text: 34 IBM asserts that it terminated Criado's employment because of miscommunication between Dr. Woodbury and its New York medical office, concerning her request for an extended leave period and her failure to report to work, rather than because of her disability or her need for an accommodation and, IBM says, since liability under the ADA requires that an employer has discriminated on the basis of the employee's disability, the district court should have granted judgment as a matter of law in its favor. However, IBM's doctor acknowledged that the evaluations of August 4 and 12 would have supported Criado's request for additional leave. 35 Moreover, IBM's position ignores its duty to accommodate under the ADA. IBM was on notice that Criado was suffering from a mental impairment and that she needed time to adjust to her exacerbated condition. An employee's request for reasonable accommodation requires a great deal of communication between the employee and employer[;] ... both parties bear responsibility for determining what accommodation is necessary. Bultemeyer v. Fort Wayne Community Schools, 100 F.3d 1281, 1285 (7th Cir.1996) (also noting that [i]n a case involving an employee with mental illness, the communication process becomes more difficult, and [i]t is crucial that the employer [is] aware of the difficulties, and help the other party determine what specific accommodations are necessary) (internal quotations and citation omitted). If the termination was the result of a communication mistake Criado should have been reinstated once her physician explained her condition and prognosis and asked for additional leave. See Bultemeyer, 100 F.3d at 1286 (holding that although physician's letter requesting an accommodation for disabled employee came after employer's decision to terminate, employer should have reconsider[ed] the decision to terminate his employment). 36 Asserting that the termination was based on Criado's absenteeism rather than her disability does not justify IBM's action where the absence was the requested accommodation. Allowing a disabled employee a one-month leave of absence does not absolve an employer's duty to accommodate, especially where the extra leave requested is not expected to be prolonged or perpetual. See Ralph, 135 F.3d at 171-72 (The defendant argues that it has already made a reasonable accommodation to the plaintiff's disability by giving him 52 weeks of leave with pay, plus changing his work assignment and supervisor. The duty to provide reasonable accommodation is a continuing one, however, and not exhausted by one effort.). Considering these facts the jury could have found that IBM terminated Criado because of her disability.