Skip to main content

An Employee That Can Work Without a Reasonable Accommodation May Still Be Entitled to One

 

Bell v. O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, Inc. - First Circuit Court of Appeals


Facts:  Brian Bell (“Bell”) worked at O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, Inc. (“O’Reilly”) as a store manager at a location in Maine.  Bell, who suffered from Tourette’s syndrome, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and major depression, took medication but still experienced motor tics.  Bell would typically work fifty hour weeks with ten and a half hour work days.  However, after losing two shift leaders and unable to use other employees to fill in, Bell ended up working one hundred hour work weeks.  This schedule included working from 6:30 AM until 9:30 PM almost every day, including weekends.  Bell soon broke down after telling his mental health provider that he was feeling overwhelmed.

After O’Reilly informed Bell that he could not return to work until he submitted a form confirming his fitness for duty, the mental health provider worked with Bell.  The mental health provider confirmed Bell could return to work after a few days off and sought to get him an accommodation that would not put him in the same stressful work environment that caused his breakdown.  An accommodation request was made for Bell to not work more than 9 hours a day 5 days a week.

O’Reilly denied the accommodation on the grounds that it thought Bell had a hard cap on the hours he could work.  (Bell stated that this accommodation request applied only to scheduled hours.  The mental health provider would not provide an amended accommodation request form, however.)  O’Reilly eventually terminated Bell and Bell brought suit on the grounds that the company failed to provide him with an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Maine Human Rights Act.

At trial, the district court gave the jury an instruction that a worker is entitled to an accommodation only if that accommodation is needed to do the essential functions of the job.  The jury returned a verdict in favor of O’Reilly.  Bell subsequently appealed.

Holding:  The Court of Appeals got to the heart of the matter and recognized that an employee who can, with some difficulty, perform the essential functions of the job without an accommodation nevertheless remains entitled to request a reasonable accommodation.  As a result, to make out a failure to accommodate claim, a claimant must only show that “(1) he is a handicapped person within the meaning of the Act [the ADA]; (2) he is nonetheless qualified to perform the essential functions of the job (with or without reasonable accommodation); and (3) the employer knew of the disability but declined to reasonable accommodate it upon request.”

Based upon the district court’s instructions to the jury, the Court of Appeals held that the instructions improperly stated the law, in regard to Bell’s causes of actions.

Judgment:  The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the jury’s verdict in favor of the employer on the grounds that an improper instruction had been given to the jury such that a qualified employee under the ADA may be entitled to a reasonable accommodation even if they can perform their work without one.

The Takeaway:  The opinion, while short, is instructive in so much that it serves as a reminder that even when an employee can perform their essential job functions without an accommodation, that does not mean that an employee is not entitled to the accommodation once requested.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Boudin

Date:  August 21, 2020

Opinion:  http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/18-2164P-01A.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