Skip to main content

After Employee's Repeated Requests For Leave, Eighth Circuit Finds Employer Put on Notice of Need For Accommodation


Garrison v. Dolgencorp, LLC - Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals


Facts:  Rochelle Garrison ("Garrison") worked as a lead sales associate at Dollar General.  (Dolgencorp, LLC is a subsidiary of Dollar General.)  Garrison's immediate supervisor was Sandra Bell ("Bell") who, like Garrison, had a key to open and close the store.  The four "key holders" for this Dollar General store were required to coordinate schedules so that at least one of them could open and close the store each day.

Garrison, suffering from anxiety, migraines, and depression, wanted to take a leave of absence due to her medical condition.  Following a doctor's visit, Garrison texted Bell and asked how to take a leave of absence.  Bell told Garrison that the district manager would be consulted.  A few days later, Garrison followed up with Bell and also asked about a rumor Bell allegedly spread that Garrison intended to quit.  When Bell finally responded, she had three messages for Garrison:  "there [was] no [leave of absence]", she could remain with Dollar General as long as she could "do the job and not be sick all the time," and she should "[r]ead the employee handbook."

Thereafter, Garrison met Bell in person and Garrison clarified she was wanting to take a leave of absence due to anxiety and depression.  Bell repeated that she did not believe any form of leave was available and warned Garrison that she could not remain a full time employee or continue as a key holder if she kept missing shifts.  The following week, Garrison missed a shift for an emergency room visit for gastritis and anxiety.  She requested vacation for the remainder of the week but Bell rejected that request as two of the four key holders were scheduled to be gone.  Garrison subsequently told Bell she was quitting because it was the only way she could "get better."  Garrison was replaced by someone Bell had hired a week earlier, after the subject of Garrison's leave came up.

Garrison subsequently filed suit and claimed she had been discriminated against both in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Missouri Human Rights Act, had been unlawfully interfered with in seeking medical leave under the Family Medical Leave Act, and had been retaliated against for attempting to exercise her rights under each of those laws.  Garrison's case was dismissed entirely on summary judgment and this appeal followed.

Holding:  (Note, this case brief analyzes only the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") portion of Garrison's claim.)

At the outset, the Court noted that it would first examine Garrison's claim that she was entitled to an accommodation under the ADA.  To prevail upon this portion of her claim, Garrison had to show:  1) her employer knew she was disabled; 2) she requested an accommodation; 3) her employer failed to engage in a "flexible" and informal[] interactive process" with her about possible accommodations; and 4) her disability could have been reasonably accommodated had the interactive process taken place.

In this instance, the Court found sufficient evidence in the evidence in the record to support Garrison's claim.  However, the pivotal question centered on whether Garrison had done enough to put Dollar General on notice that she was seeking an accommodation, with the test being whether she made Dollar General "aware of the need for an accommodation."  Garrison had asked Bell for a leave of absence at least four times.  Even though Garrison never used the word "accommodation" or asked about anything other than leave, that did not preclude her claim from proceeding.

As for Dollar General's engagement in the "interactive process," the Court was not as convinced.  As caselaw had established, once Garrison made the accommodation request (by asking for leave,) Dollar General had an obligation to take some initiative and identify a reasonable accommodation.  In this instance, the Court found that a factual dispute existed in regard to whether Dollar General, if it had engaged in the interactive process, could have reasonably accommodated Garrison's disability. 

Judgment:  The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's ruling, finding there was sufficient evidence to present a fact issue that the employer was aware of an employee's disability; that the employee requested an accommodation; and that the employer, had it engaged in the interactive process, could have reasonably accommodated the employee.

The Takeaway:  I wanted to highlight this case for readers in an effort to point out the importance of engaging in the interactive process when an employee requests an accommodation.  Now, while the Court did not say that Garrison should prevail on her ADA claim, it did find enough evidence in the record to preclude summary judgment for the employer.  Whether a jury would agree that the employer violated the ADA is a question for another day.  But in the interim, Garrison's ADA claim survives and lives to fight another day.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Stras

Date:  October 3, 2019

Opinion:  https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/19/10/181066P.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