Opinion ID: 4580182
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Laird’s employment at the County

Text: Laird has worked for Fairfax County for more than twenty-five years. After starting out as a file clerk, Laird worked her way up to a Contract Specialist I in the County’s Department of Procurement & Material Management. In 2012, Laird informed her boss, Cathy Muse, about her multiple sclerosis diagnosis. Seeking a “reasonable accommodation” under the ADA, Laird formally asked Muse if she could begin unscheduled telework. 1 Muse approved the request, authorizing Laird to telework “whenever she wanted to or needed to,” so long as Laird let Muse know. 1 Under the ADA, an employer must generally provide a reasonable accommodation—like a “modified work schedule[],” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(9)(B)—to enable a qualified person “to perform the essential functions of [a] position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii). But the ADA does not require an employer to provide this accommodation when doing so would “impose an undue hardship on the operation of [its] business.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A). 2 J.A. 930, 968. Laird and Muse also “agreed that either party could revisit the accommodation at any time, with management assessing the accommodation’s effectiveness on at least an annual basis.” J.A. 1212. Over time, Muse found Laird’s accommodation “untenable” given Laird’s job. J.A. 931. Not only was it difficult for Muse to supervise Laird and ensure that she had enough work to do, but successful telework required planned absences. So the County modified Laird’s accommodation, allowing her “to telework on two scheduled days per week . . . [or] 16 hours per week.” Id. And even then, the County required Laird to come into the office for scheduled meetings. This new schedule did not satisfy Laird. So in December 2016, she filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In her complaint, Laird alleged that the County discriminated against her because of her disability by failing to provide the initial, more generous, accommodations. Over several months, the parties engaged in settlement discussions, in which Laird “indicated that a lateral transfer could resolve [her] EEOC charge.” J.A. 1225. The parties reached a settlement agreement in May 2017: “The County agree[d] to provide, and Laird agree[d] to accept, a lateral transfer within the County to the Fairfax County Police Department (FCPD) to the position of Buyer I, where she [would] maintain her pay grade, position within the salary band, and opportunity for future promotion.” J.A. 751. Laird was also given up to 16 hours of flexible telework each work week as an accommodation, as well as a lump sum of $30,000. 3 After Laird accepted the Settlement, she was transferred to the Police Department’s Quartermaster Section, which is responsible for “uniforming and equipping about 2,000 members of the agency and also some non-members.” J.A. 43. It is “downstream in [the procurement] process” in that it “initiate[s] the need for something to be purchased and [ ] also receive[s] the goods when they come in.” J.A. 67. Before Laird started, Police Major Edward O’Carroll spoke with Muse about the transfer. O’Carroll suggested that Laird work in the Quartermaster Section given Laird’s familiarity with procurement. O’Carroll knew that Laird could telework two days a week, and he met with Laird’s new supervisor to discuss projects that would allow Laird to work remotely. As far as Laird’s supervisor was concerned, Laird “was just an employee that [he] could assign to Quartermaster duties” and “[u]tilize as needed.” J.A. 347. The Police Department worked to create Laird’s new job description. Titled “Management Analyst I,” the position had the same pay grade as Laird’s previous job. J.A. 147. According to the description, Laird was to “[a]ssist[] the Quartermaster Section with the acquisition, solicitation, negotiation, award, and contract administration for nonstandard parts, inventory items, materials, public safety equipment, uniforms, and all mission critical supplies in direct support of the Fairfax County Police Department.” J.A. 1239. After a little over a month on the job, Laird complained that she was not performing the duties in her job description because they were not done in the Quartermaster Section. The Police Department met with Laird to discuss the issue in August. The Department agreed to create a new position and job description for a “Buyer I.” J.A. 155–56, 162. 4 The County sent Laird the revised job description, which removed the duties that were not performed in the Quartermaster Section and renamed Laird’s job title. But Laird refused to formally accept the position. To this day, Laird remains classified as a Department of Procurement & Material Management employee, although she works at the Police Department. Since starting in the Quartermaster Section, Laird’s work assignments have ranged from “general office duties that the rest of the team members are expected” to perform, J.A. 92, to completing “[a] higher-level requisition” for alcohol sensors and tint meters for police officers, J.A. 1078. Laird also researched a possible dry-cleaning contract, J.A. 90– 91, 337, investigated high-density shelving for a new building, J.A. 329, “help[ed] out with the counting of inventory,” J.A. 368, and updated the police uniform guide, J.A. 105. Even with these responsibilities, Laird claims that her “opportunity for future promotion” has been hurt by the transfer. J.A. 570. According to Laird, hers “is a thinkless job, just data entry . . . and checking for expiration dates and stuff like that.” J.A. 740. She finds the work “boring,” although she has no complaints about her relationship with her supervisor nor about how the Police Department has accommodated her disability requests. J.A. 647, 711, 740.