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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more