Opinion ID: 6330219
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Undue Hardship to Employer

Text: “Even where, as here, a plaintiff might be able to demonstrate a reasonable accommodation, a defendant can still be granted summary judgment, if there are no genuine issues of material fact controverting the conclusion that the reasonable accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the employer.” Cleveland, 83 F. App’x at 79. “If the employee establishes that a reasonable accommodation is possible, then the employer bears the burden of proving that the accommodation is unreasonable and imposes an ‘undue hardship’ on the employer.” Id. (quoting Cehrs, 155 F.3d at 781–82). “[T]he inquiry into reasonableness requires, ‘a factual determination untethered to the defendant employer’s particularized situation,’ whereas the question of whether a reasonable accommodation imposes an undue burden is evaluated with regard to ‘the employer’s specific situation.’” Walsh, 201 F.3d at 726 n.3 (quoting Monette v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp., 90 F.3d 1173, 1184 n.10 (6th Cir. 1996)). Ohio law lists three factors that courts should consider: (1) business necessity; (2) financial considerations; and (3) any other factors that the employer “can support with objective evidence.” Ohio Admin. Code 4112-5-08(E)(3). The Hospital has not shown that granting King’s request for medical leave would cause it undue hardship. When an employer believes that granting medical leave would cause undue hardship, courts first look to the employer’s leave policies. See Walsh, 201 F.3d at 726. If the employer’s policies provided for the kind of leave that the plaintiff sought, courts will presume that granting the plaintiff’s request would not cause undue hardship. See id. For the same reasons as discussed above, see supra Part II.B.1.a, King’s request for five weeks of non-FMLA leave was well within the Hospital’s policies. It also fell below the prolonged leaves that this Court has found unduly burdensome. See, e.g., Aston v. Tapco Int’l Corp., 631 F. App’x 292, 298 (6th Cir. No. 21-3445 King v. Steward Trumbull Mem. Hosp. Page 22 2015). Moreover, the Hospital allowed employees to seek emergency medical leave without advance notice, and even had policies in place for handling retroactive leave requests. See supra Part II.B.1.a. Anti-discrimination laws sometimes require employers to accommodate unexpected circumstances. Sudden illnesses and episodic flare-ups are, by nature, difficult to plan for and can be quite disruptive to those who fall ill and those around them. But that does not mean that accommodating a sudden flare-up will cause undue hardship merely because handling these situations requires more flexibility. Additionally, the record shows that the Hospital did not actually suffer any undue hardship because of King’s five-week absence. The Hospital did not have any significant staffing disruptions, and Bungard does not remember having to pick up any of King’s missed shifts. Nor did King’s absence amount to excessive absenteeism under the Hospital’s disciplinary policies. King’s consecutive absences only counted as a single “occasion” and did not warrant any disciplinary action. Finally, at the very least, the Hospital has not shown that keeping King’s job open while she applied for leave would have caused undue hardship. While keeping an employee’s job open indefinitely may cause undue hardship, see Aston, 631 F. App’x at 298, keeping the job open long enough to allow the employee to apply for leave does not. Accepting King’s version of events, the Hospital terminated King after she first sought leave from FMLASource and while she was trying to sort out her hours so that she could formally apply for leave. Thus, a jury could find that the Hospital did not meet its burden to show that granting King retroactive leave while keeping her job open would have caused undue hardship.