Opinion ID: 1867187
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Application of WFEA to Roytek's claim

Text: ¶ 60. As I have noted above, analysis of a WFEA claim involves three steps: (1) The employee must prove he or she has a disability. City of La Crosse Police & Fire Comm'n, 139 Wis. 2d at 760. (2) The employee must prove an accommodation exists, that the accommodation is reasonable, but notwithstanding that reasonable accommodation, the employer refused employment. See US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391, 401-02 (2002). [7] (3) If the employee succeeds on these first two elements, the employer must then prove that the suggested accommodation is a hardship, in order to avoid a violation of WFEA. Geen v. LIRC, 2002 WI App 269, ¶ 15, 258 Wis. 2d 498, 654 N.W.2d 1. However, if the employee does not prove an accommodation that permits the employee to adequately undertake the job-related responsibilities of that individual's employment, the employer may refuse to employ that individual without violating WFEA. Wis. Stat. § 111.34 (1)(b) and (2)(a); see also Geen, 258 Wis. 2d 498, ¶ 15. This makes sense because otherwise an employer would be required to hire all individuals without regard for the job-related responsibilities the employer sought to accomplish by making the job available in the first instance. ¶ 61. Courts must keep the provisions of Wis. Stat. § 111.34(2)(a) in mind when considering whether what has been offered is an accommodation under § 111.34(1)(b) because subsection (1)(b) requires an employer to employ the individual when the accommodation satisfies subsection (2)(a), unless the employer proves a hardship. [8] If the analysis shifts too quickly to whether the employee's suggestion creates, or does not create, a hardship for the employer, the initial analysis of whether what is offered is actually a statutory accommodation will be lost, as will the employer's right to make valid business decisions without violating the law. Therefore, an accommodation that is sufficient under the statutes permits the employee to work and at the same time, it permits the employer to have the job-related responsibilities of that individual's employment met. Target Stores v. LIRC, 217 Wis. 2d 1, 17, 576 N.W.2d 545 (Ct. App. 1998). ¶ 62. Here, Roytek proved she has a disability under WFEA. However, she did not prove an accommodation under Wis. Stat. § 111.34(1)(b). Her suggestion of permanent eight-hour shifts did not permit HTI to implement its valid management decision of increasing production by using its equipment 24 hours per day. Stated another way, her suggestion was not an accommodation because it did not permit the employer to have the job-related responsibilities of Roytek's employment met, i.e., working for 12-hour shifts. Section 111.34(2)(a) requires this condition in order to make a prima facie showing of an accommodation. See US Airways, 535 U.S. at 402. The majority opinion ignores this obligation of a WFEA claimant by repeatedly stating that HTI has not shown hardship. See, e.g., majority op., ¶ 34 n.15, ¶ 35. ¶ 63. The majority opinion relies extensively on our decision in Crystal Lake Cheese Factory v. LIRC, 2003 WI 106, 264 Wis. 200, 664 N.W.2d 651, where we held that it was a reasonable accommodation without hardship to the employer to require the employer to retain an employee who could not do all the tasks that she had been hired to perform. Id., ¶ 51. We concluded that the employer was required to partially reassign the employee's duties to two of the three other employees in the disabled worker's department because those employees said they would complete the tasks that the disabled worker could not perform. Id., ¶ 78. Additionally, the employer had not shown that the requested physical modification necessary to accommodate a wheelchair was a hardship. Id., ¶ 80. ¶ 64. It is important to note that the majority decision here goes far beyond our conclusions in Crystal Lake because Crystal Lake focused on the tasks that comprised the job that the disabled worker was hired to perform. Id., ¶ 70. In Crystal Lake, we concluded that because the tasks the job required would continue to be fully accomplished, albeit not all by the disabled employee, what the employee offered was a reasonable accommodation. Id., ¶ 78. In other words, the valid management decision the employer made about what tasks it needed done, got done. ¶ 65. Here, by contrast, HTI made a valid management decision to increase production by implementing 12-hour shifts, two per day. Roytek suggested an eight-hour work schedule, which may seem to be an accommodation from her perspective because she could do it. However, it is not a statutory accommodation, because HTI is not being permitted to use its equipment 24 hours a day for a full team of workers on each shift. And contrary to the accommodation in Crystal Lake where other workers offered to do the tasks that the disabled worker could not do, no other worker has offered to do Roytek's missing four hours per shift. That no such offer was made is understandable because the other workers were already working 12 hours per shift, four hours of which were the same four hours that Roytek was not working. ¶ 66. Furthermore, if the accommodation to work less than a full shift is held to be sufficient to meet the employee's burden under Wis. Stat. § 111.34(1)(b), then that interpretation cancels the employer's right under § 111.34(2)(a) to make a valid management decision to run its manufacturing business 24 hours per day. This was never the intent of the legislature in enacting WFEA. Rather, the purpose of WFEA was to encourage employers to evaluate an employee or applicant for employment based upon the employee's or applicant's individual qualifications. Section 111.31(2). ¶ 67. The majority also relies on HTI's permitting Roytek to work partial shifts while her back condition was improving to support its conclusion that HTI should be required to continue with shortened shifts on a permanent basis. Majority op., ¶ 35. This conclusion appears to be based in part on the court of appeals decision in Target, which in my view, the majority misinterprets. ¶ 68. In Target, the employee was cited by Target for repeatedly sleeping on the job. Management suggested that she see a physician to determine why she kept dosing off at work. She did so and learned she had a type of sleep apnea. The physician suggested treatments, which the employee began. However, shortly thereafter, she was again cited for sleeping on the job, and even though management knew that she was undergoing treatment for a sleep disorder, it terminated her, rather than waiting a reasonable amount of time to see if the treatment would be effective. The employee sued under WFEA, claiming discrimination due to disability, and LIRC concluded that Target violated WFEA by not continuing her employment. LIRC said because she was actively treating her disability and it would in all likelihood be [resolved on] a short-term basis, Target should have given the treatment a chance to succeed. Target, 217 Wis. 2d at 8-9. ¶ 69. The court of appeals agreed with LIRC. However, it did not require a permanent change in expectations in regard to the employee's not sleeping on the job, but rather a temporary accommodation to permit medical treatment which, if successful, will remove the difficulty in performing the job-related responsibility. Id. at 19. Here, the majority permits a permanent disregard of the employer's business decision about how to increase production. In so doing, the majority uses HTI's forbearance from termination while Roytek was attempting to resolve her back condition against HTI. This puts employers between the proverbial rock and a hard place: Target requires an employer to wait a reasonable time when an employee is being treated to resolve a medical condition and the majority opinion herein concludes that an employer who waits to see if a medical condition will resolve, will have that used against it, if the condition becomes permanent and the employee is fired. ¶ 70. Also of importance to the case at hand is the court of appeals explanation in Target of the interrelationship between Wis. Stat. § 111.34(1)(b) and (2)(a): When read together, the only reasonable construction of these two provisions is that the purpose of reasonable accommodation is to enable employees to adequately undertake job-related responsibilities. Id. at 17 (emphasis added). The relationship between these two statutes is the issue here too, but the majority's interpretation ignores it. In so doing it cancels § 111.34(2)(a), which protects an employer from having to employ individuals when the job-related responsibilities of the individual's employment will not be met. ¶ 71. It is interesting to note that the majority says: We begin by recognizing the important role that management prerogatives play in the success of a business. This court has stated that it is necessary to preserve the freedom of private enterprise to manage its business as it sees fit. Libby, McNeill & Libby v. WERC, 48 Wis. 2d 272, 280, 179 N.W.2d 805 (1970) [additional citations omitted]. We are mindful that a business must have the right to set its own employment rules to encourage maximum productivity. Majority op., ¶ 29. However, these are hollow assurances because after the release of the decision in this case, no employer will be able to say that a certain number of hours must be worked in a shift or that it will use its equipment 24 hours per day and seven days a week, if employees and potential employees have notes from their doctors that say that those individuals have disabilities that prevent them from working more than a stated number of hours in a shift. ¶ 72. This is a sea change in Wisconsin employment law because heretofore employers were not required to forego valid business decisions, such as using equipment 24 hours per day, to suit employees and prospective employees who were not able to undertake those job-related responsibilities. It is important to note that although Roytek wanted to work eight-hour shifts, the majority opinion applies equally to other employees and prospective employees who can work only six hours of an eight-hour shift. For example, when the General Motors plant in Janesville works three eight-hour shifts per day and one or more employees or prospective employees have statements from a physician that the individual can work only six-hour shifts, General Motors will be required to let its equipment stand idle for two hours each shift for each employee who has such a disability. This cannot be what the legislature had in mind when it amended WFEA in 1981. III. CONCLUSION ¶ 73. I conclude no WFEA violation occurred because Roytek's offer to continue working only two-thirds of her shift is insufficient to be an accommodation, as that term is used in Wis. Stat. § 111.34(1)(b). Additionally, Roytek's offer results in negating § 111.34 (2)(a), which provides that it is not discrimination to refuse to employ an individual when the job-related responsibilities of that individual's employment are not met. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.