Opinion ID: 757637
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Violation of the ADA

Text: 23 The central issue in this appeal is whether Excel's medical layoff policy, as it was implemented, violated the ADA. The statute forbids a covered employer from discriminating against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, ... and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). The question of whether plaintiffs are qualified individuals with a disability is not before us. See n.3 supra; Hendricks-Robinson v. Excel, 972 F.Supp. at 468. The issue is whether Excel's policy discriminated against the plaintiffs by failing to make reasonable accommodations for them as disabled individuals. We begin with the particular statutory provision that defines the term discrimination. The term includes:(5)(A) not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, unless such covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operations of the business of such covered entity; or 24 (B) denying employment opportunities to a job applicant or employee who is an otherwise qualified individual with a disability, if such denial is based on the need of [the employer] to make reasonable accommodation to the physical or mental impairments of the employee or applicant. 25 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A), (B). Under the ADA, an employee begins the accommodation process by informing his employer of his disability; at that point, an employer's liability is triggered for failure to provide accommodations. Beck v. University of Wis. Bd. of Regents, 75 F.3d 1130, 1134 (7th Cir.1996). Once an employer's responsibility to provide reasonable accommodation is triggered, the employer must engage with the employee in an 'interactive process' to determine the appropriate accommodation under the circumstances. Bombard v. Fort Wayne Newspapers, Inc., 92 F.3d 560, 563 (7th Cir.1996). The reasonable accommodation element of the Act imposes a duty upon employers to engage in a flexible, interactive process with the disabled employee needing accommodation so that, together, they might identify the employee's precise limitations and discuss accommodations which might enable the employee to continue working. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3); see also 29 C.F.R. Pt. 1630, App. § 1630.9. If the employee is unable to perform his job, with or without accommodation, the employer must consider reassignment as one form of accommodation. See 42 U.S.C. § 12111(9)(B). 7 An employer must make a reasonable effort to explore the accommodation possibilities with the employee. See Miller v. Illinois Dep't of Corrections, 107 F.3d 483, 486-87 (7th Cir.1997). If a vacant position is available and the disabled employee is qualified for it, the ADA may require an employer to reassign [him] ... as reasonable accommodation. Gile v. United Airlines, Inc., 95 F.3d 492, 498 (7th Cir.1996). 26 Having set forth the basic ADA requirements concerning reasonable accommodation, we shall now consider the specific contentions of the plaintiffs. 27