Skip to main content

Employer's Refusal to Reassign Disabled Employee to a New Position Does NOT Necessarily Amount to a Disability Discrimination Claim


Raiford v. Maryland Dept. of Juvenile Services - United States District Court for the District of Maryland


Facts:  Gregory Raiford ("Raiford") was a Resident Advisor ("RA") with the Maryland Department of Juvenile Services ("DJS") at a youth detention facility.  In his position as an RA, Raiford was in charge of providing care and supervision to youth offenders.  In June 2010, Raiford was injured while separating juveniles who were in a fight.  

After he initially returned to light duty work at the gatehouse, which did not involve contact with the juveniles, he underwent surgery on his knee and took about three months to recover.  In April 2011, Raiford's doctor recommended that he return to the gatehouse for his light duty work.  However, DJS could not accommodate this request and gave Raiford another month of leave.  During that time off, DJS required Raiford to undergo a workability evaluation to determine if he could perform the essential functions of his RA position with or without reasonable accommodation.  It was soon determined he could not.

DJS advised Raiford that he could either apply for a vacant opening, pursue a rehabilitation program, or resign.  DJS further advised Raiford that several accommodation requests had been considered and rejected.  

Raiford subsequently chose to resign and sue.  He alleged that DJS failed to accommodate him under the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act when it refused to reassign him permanently to the gatehouse position.  Raiford claimed that DJS had an obligation to reassign him to a job he was qualified to do.

Holding:  In analyzing Raiford's claim, the District Court looked at the defenses raised by DJS.  In particular, DJS argued that Raiford could not establish a valid claim because assigning Raiford to the gatehouse position would "effectively eliminate the undisputed essential function of the RA Trainee position"...to provide direct care and supervision to the youths.  As a result, the Court held that based upon this line of reasoning, Raiford could not prevail on his claims against DJS. 

Judgment:  The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of DJS and held that Raiford failed to provide any evidence that a permanent reassignment to the gatehouse position would enable him to perform the essential functions of his RA position (which required him to supervise the youths).

The Takeaway:  This case reminded me of the Nealy v. City of Santa Monica case from back in April (Nealy v. City of Santa Monica - Blog Post).  As with that case, this Court ruled in favor of the employer for similar reasons:  an employer cannot necessarily be required to eliminate essential job functions in order to reasonably accommodate an employee's medical condition.  The key thing to keep in mind here is whether an employer can reasonably accommodate the employee.  Based upon what Raiford was hired to do in his RA position, DJS simply could not make a reasonable accommodation for him after his knee injury.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Chasanow

Date:  July 21, 2015

Opinion:  cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/maryland/mddce/8:2012cv03795/222917/64/0.pdf?ts=1437567748

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