Dollar General's Denial of Employee's Accommodation Request & Refusal to Consider Other Accommodations Is Detrimental in Disability Discrimination Claim

EEOC v. Dolgencorp, LLC d/b/a Dollar General Corporation - Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals

Facts:  Linda Atkins ("Atkins") worked as a sales associate at Dollar General.  Atkins is a type II diabetic and on occasion suffered from low blood sugar.  To prevent passing out, Atkins had to quickly consume glucose.  When Atkins asked her manager if she could keep orange juice at her register in case of emergency, her request was denied.  On two occasions, she suffered two episodes while working alone.  Both times, she responded by drinking orange juice from the checkout cooler, paying for it immediately and reporting the incident to her supervisor.  Dollar General proceeded to fire Atkins and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") proceeded to file a suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") on her behalf.  Atkins intervened and her reasonable accommodation and discriminatory discharge claims proceeded to trial before a jury.  After having judgment granted in her favor, Dollar General appealed.

Holding:  (Note, this case brief only analyzes the reasonable accommodation and discriminatory discharge portions of Dollar General's appeal).

Reasonable Accommodation

In its appeal, Dollar General claimed that the jury erred in finding it discriminated against Atkins by failing to provide her with a reasonable accommodation (keeping orange juice at the register).  Dollar General claimed it had no duty to accommodate Atkins because Atkins had her nurse testify that there were other ways to treat hypoglycemia, including glucose tablets, gels, honey, candy, and peanut butter crackers.  As a result, Dollar General maintained it had no obligation to let Atkins keep orange juice at the register.

The Court noted that Dollar General had a "Personal Appearance" policy that prohibited employes from chewing guy or eating/drinking, except during breaks.  The policy did allow for "[r]eligious and/or disability-related exceptions."  However, in this instance, Atkins asked for an exception but got nowhere.  Once Atkins requested her reasonable accommodation, Dollar General had a duty to explore the nature of the employee's limitations, if and how those affected her work, and what types of accommodations could be made.  Had Dollar General done this, Atkins could have been allowed to consume glucose pills at the register.  However, Dollar General instead denied Atkins' request, failed to explore other alternatives, and never took the matter up with a supervisor.

Discriminatory Discharge

Dollar General asserted that it had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating Atkins, namely the company's anti-grazing policy, not because of Atkins' disability itself.  However, the Court of Appeals was quick to cut this argument off and pointed out that while a defendant may use a legitimate, nondiscriminatory rationale as a shield against indirect or circumstantial evidence of discrimination, a neutral policy is of no moment when an employee presents direct evidence of discrimination.  Consequently, failing to provide a protected employee with a reasonable accommodation constitutes direct evidence of discrimination.  The Court was unswayed by Dollar General's argument that the jury verdict could not stand because Atkins had never produced evidence that Dollar General had animus towards the disabled.  An employer violates the ADA whenever it discharges an employee on the basis of a disability, not only when it harbors ill will.

Judgment:  The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a jury verdict for a disabled employee on the grounds that she was improperly terminated for her disability and her employer failed to offer her a reasonable accommodation or even consider whether other accommodations could be made.

The Takeaway:  This was an interesting case, although one that I think was relatively straightforward.  Employers take note, Dollar General's outright refusal to allow Atkins to have orange juice at the register to help combat her diabetes was a problem, but not necessarily detrimental.  However, Dollar General's refusal/inability to even consider other accommodations for Atkins was ultimately fatal.  Had Dollar General allowed Atkins to have the orange juice at the register (or something else to help combat her diabetes, as the nurse had indicated), I think Dollar General could have been in the clear.  Without even considering other options though, made this an impossible hill to climb.  Of course, that does not even address Dollar General's failure to provide a protected employee with a reasonable accommodation resulted in direct evidence of discrimination (and ultimately a valid discriminatory discharge claim).  Although there were many, many things that Dollar General could have done differently here to avoid a lawsuit, for whatever reason, they dug in their heels, refused to consider other accommodations and are now on the hook for a somewhat sizeable jury verdict in favor of Atkins.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Sutton

Date:  August 7, 2018

Opinion:  http://hr.cch.com/eld/EEOCDolgencorp080718.pdf