Opinion ID: 555763
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Amended Policy and Reasonable Accommodation

Text: 24 Plaintiffs' claims are not limited to injuries stemming from the department's original policy. Rather, plaintiffs argue that, even the amended policy, which permitted reserve participation but instructed department supervisors to negotiate scheduling conflicts with the reservist-employee's commanding officer, violated plaintiffs' rights under the V.R.R.A. as amended. 1 However, because the current law with respect to the reasonable accommodation of reservists' requests for leave is not clearly established, we hold that the defendants are immune from damages based on their actions pursuant to the amended policy. We do not decide at this interlocutory stage, however, whether the department's revised policy actually violated plaintiffs' rights under the Act. 25 In this regard, we note that this court has never had occasion to consider whether the V.R.R.A. requires reasonable accommodation of the needs of both the reservist and the employer when a reservist requests a leave of absence. Other circuits have articulated varying standards. For example, in Lee v. City of Pensacola, 634 F.2d 886 (5th Cir.1981), the Fifth Circuit held that the difficulties faced by the City in carrying out its important police duties justified the city's refusal to extend an employee-reservist's leave of absence. Id. at 889. Similarly, in Eidukonis v. Southeastern Pa. Transp. Auth., 873 F.2d 688 (3d Cir.1989), the Third Circuit held that a standard which evaluates an employee's request for leave and the civilian employer's response on the basis of reasonableness under all of the circumstances is the appropriate one under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 2024. Id. at 694. 26 On the other hand, in Gulf States Paper Corp. v. Ingram, 811 F.2d 1464 (11th Cir.1987), the Eleventh Circuit struck the balance more heavily in favor of the reservist, holding that [t]he reservist begins with a presumption that her leave request is reasonable, and suggests that, absent questionable conduct of the employee, the reasonableness test would likely be satisfied. Id. at 1470. Most recently, in Kolkhorst v. Tilghman, 897 F.2d 1282 (1990), the Fourth Circuit rejected the reasonableness standard as inconsistent with the purposes of the Act. Id. at 1286. 27 The Portsmouth Police Department's revised policy provides a mechanism for balancing the needs of the department with the reservist's need to fulfill his military obligations. Given the lack of case law in this Circuit and the varying standards applied in the cases from other circuits, we cannot say that the plaintiffs' rights were so clear that a reasonable official would have understood that the policy providing for some negotiation regarding scheduling needs violated those rights. See Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640, 107 S.Ct. at 3039. Thus, the individual defendants enjoy qualified immunity with respect to plaintiffs' damages claims against them based on the revised policy. 2 At this stage, we, of course, do not decide whether such a policy is actually consistent with the requirements of the Act or whether a reasonableness standard is appropriate in evaluating the policy. 28