Opinion ID: 787450
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Adverse Employment Action Resulting From Discrimination

Text: 91 As we have noted, a failure to make a reasonable accommodation for a disabled and qualified employee constitutes discrimination under the ADA. Taylor, 184 F.3d at 306. Williams claims that PHA failed to make such an accommodation when it refused his requests for assignment to the radio room and the training unit. In addition to insisting that Williams was not disabled, PHA seems to suggest that it offered to reasonably accommodate Williams by offering him an unpaid leave of absence and future employment should he recover. [T]he question of whether a proposed accommodation is reasonable is a question of fact. Buskirk, 307 F.3d at 170; see also Skerski, 257 F.3d at 286; cf. Walton v. Mental Health Ass'n of Southeastern Pa., 168 F.3d 661, 671 (3d Cir.1999) (unpaid leave supplementing regular sick and personal days might, under [some] facts, represent a reasonable accommodation). If a trier of fact concludes that Williams was disabled, however, it could also find that the failure to continue Williams' paid employment as a member of the radio or training unit was a failure to reasonably accommodate and accordingly constituted an adverse employment action under the ADA. 92 Additionally, we have repeatedly held that an employer has a duty under the ADA to engage in an interactive process of communication with an employee requesting an accommodation so that the employer will be able to ascertain whether there is in fact a disability and, if so, the extent thereof, and thereafter be able to assist in identifying reasonable accommodations where appropriate. The ADA itself does not refer to the interactive process, but does require employers to make reasonable accommodations under some circumstances for qualified individuals. Shapiro v. Township of Lakewood, 292 F.3d 356, 359 (3d Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). With respect to what consists of a reasonable accommodation, EEOC regulations indicate that, 93 [t]o determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the covered entity to initiate an informal, interactive process with the qualified individual with a disability in need of the accommodation. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations. 94 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2( o )(3). Further, 95 The EEOC's interpretive guidelines establish the circumstances that trigger the employer's duty to engage in this interactive process: Once a qualified individual with a disability has requested provision of a reasonable accommodation, the employer must make a reasonable effort to determine the appropriate accommodation. The appropriate reasonable accommodation is best determined through a flexible, interactive process that involves both the employer and the [employee] with a disability. 96 Jones v. United Parcel Serv., 214 F.3d 402, 407 (3d Cir.2000) (quoting 29 C.F.R. Pt. 1630, App. § 1630.9). 97 Accordingly, we have held that both employer and employee have a duty to assist in the search for appropriate reasonable accommodation and to act in good faith. Mengine, 114 F.3d at 420 (discussing the duty in the context of the Rehabilitation Act). An employee can demonstrate that an employer breached its duty to provide reasonable accommodations because it failed to engage in good faith in the interactive process by showing that: 98 1) the employer knew about the employee's disability; 2) the employee requested accommodations or assistance for his or her disability; 3) the employer did not make a good faith effort to assist the employee in seeking accommodations; and 4) the employee could have been reasonably accommodated but for the employer's lack of good faith. 99 Taylor, 184 F.3d at 319-20. However, in addressing an employee's claim that an employer failed to engage in the interactive process, we have also made clear that a plaintiff in a disability discrimination case who claims that the defendant engaged in discrimination by failing to make a reasonable accommodation cannot recover without showing that a reasonable accommodation was possible. Donahue, 224 F.3d at 234. Thus, 'because employers have a duty to help the disabled employee devise accommodations, an employer who acts in bad faith in the interactive process will be liable if the jury can reasonably conclude that the employee would have been able to perform the job with accommodations.' Id. at 234-35 (quoting Taylor, 184 F.3d at 317) (emphasis in original). 100 Under Taylor, Williams has demonstrated that a fact-finder could conclude that PHA knew about his disability, that he requested accommodation, that PHA's quite limited response to his training unit assignment request was not made in good faith, that PHA's offer of extended unpaid leave was not a good faith response to his request for a radio room assignment, and that Williams could have been reasonably accommodated with a radio room or training unit assignment but for PHA's lack of good faith. Thus, a material dispute of fact exists as to whether PHA failed to engage in good faith in the interactive process, thereby failing to reasonably accommodate Williams. 16