Skip to main content

Employer Is Not Required to Remove Essential Job Functions as a Reasonable Accommodation


Nealy v. City of Santa Monica - Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Eight


Facts:  Tony Nealy worked for the City of Santa Monica as a waste equipment operator.  After he sustained work related injuries to his knee and back, he took several leaves of absence and had multiple surgeries.  Nealy's doctor reported that Nealy could return to work but was subject to certain restrictions, such as no kneeling, bending, stooping, walking over uneven terrain, running, prolonged standing, or heavy lifting.  When the City met with Nealy, it identified the essential functions of the position that it believed Nealy could not perform based upon his medical restrictions.  

After discussions, the City concluded it could not reasonably accommodate Nealy in the position and offered to reassign him.  Nealy subsequently applied for a city planning staff assistant position.  However, he did not have the appropriate experience for this new position.  Although the City extended Nealy's leave of absence to allow him to apply for disability retirement, his application was rejected because he failed to submit required information.  Nealy then sued the City for disability discrimination and retaliation.  The trial court granted the City's motion to dismiss Nealy's claims.  Nealy subsequently appealed. 

Holding:  The Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's ruling and held that the City was not required to eliminate essential functions of a position as a reasonable accommodation to Nealy.  Of note, the Court held that under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), an employer is not obligated to accommodate an employee by excusing him from the performance of essential job functions.  In this instance, the Court recognized Nealy's argument that he could perform one essential job function (operate the vehicle), but looked to the fact that he was unable to perform many other essential job functions such as heavy lifting, clearing debris and trash from the hopper of vehicles, and conducting vehicle inspections, among others job functions.  

As for Nealy's argument that the City should have reassigned him to a vacant staff position, the Court rejected this argument and held that the City was not required to create a new position for him or provide "an indefinite leave of absence to await possible future vacancies." 

Judgment:  The Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's ruling and held the City of Santa Monica was not required to eliminate essential job functions of Nealy's position in order to reasonably accommodate his medical condition. 

The Takeaway:  I wanted to write a post about this case for the simple reason that the facts of the case are relatively straightforward and the court's reasoning is to the point.  This case is one that employers should look at when considering what type of reasonable accommodation must be extended to an employee with a condition that prevents them from performing certain essential job functions.  In this instance, I think the court's reasoning is correct in that an employer cannot be "forced" to reasonably accommodate an employee when that employee can no longer perform many/most of the essential job functions they were hired to perform.  If Nealy had been allowed to stay in the position, it would have become a burden on the City to then shift more responsibilities to someone else (or hire another employee) to perform most of Nealy's job functions. 

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Flier

Date:  January 21, 2015

Opinion:  www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B246634.PDF

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more