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,...
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