The Sixth Circuit previously explained in Hostettler v. College of Wooster, 895 F.3d 844 (6th Cir. 2018) that regular, in-person attendance is not a per se essential function of every job. Rather, employers must tie time-and-presence requirements to the specific job at issue. In Popeck v. Rawlings Co., LLC, No. 19-5092 (6th Cir.
Jonathan A. Roth
You Can’t Go Home Again: Employee’s Telework Accommodation Unreasonable, Seventh Circuit Rules
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) did not fail to accommodate a disabled lawyer by rejecting her request to work from home and offering alternative accommodations instead, the Seventh Circuit ruled in Yochim v. Carson, No. 18-3670 (7th Cir. Aug. 15, 2019). Affirming summary judgment, the Court held that the employee’s…
With Broad FMLA “Benefits” Interpretation, Sixth Circuit Faults “No-Fault” Attendance Policy
Employers must carefully navigate Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) pitfalls when administering attendance policies. As illustrated by the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Dyer v. Ventra Sandusky, LLC, No. 18-3802 (6th Cir. Aug. 8, 2019), one misstep can lead to potential FMLA liability.
Background
Dyer worked as a technician for automotive supplier Ventra…
Employer’s Good Deed Goes Unpunished—Reliable Attendance Is Essential Function Despite Prior Accommodation of Employee’s Absences
While it’s true that acts of generosity sometimes backfire on those who offer them, the Court’s ruling in Higgins v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., No. 18-1902 (8th Cir. July 24, 2019) shows this is not always the case. In Higgins, the Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Union Pacific—holding that regular, reliable attendance…
Plaintiff With PTSD Not Disabled Under The ADA, Sixth Circuit Rules
The Sixth Circuit’s ruling in Tinsley v. Caterpillar Fin. Servs., Corp., No. 18-5303 (6th Cir. Mar. 20, 2019) is a good reminder that not all impairments rise to the level of a “disability” within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). In addition to showing a physical or mental impairment, ADA plaintiffs…
Fourth Circuit Reaffirms That Regular, Reliable Attendance Is Essential Function Of Most Jobs
The Fourth Circuit has reaffirmed its position that regular and reliable attendance is an essential function of most jobs. The Court held that an employer did not violate the Rehabilitation Act by taking adverse action against an employee because of her attendance issues—even though they were caused by her mental illness. Hannah P. v. Coats…
Unsettled Waters at the Accommodation of Last Resort
In 2019, we are poised to learn where the Fourth Circuit stands on reassignment as an accommodation—an issue that has split the Circuits.
Before discussing where courts are divided, let’s start with the consensus. First, the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) clearly requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to the limitations of an employee with…
Appellate Courts Agree: Regular, Reliable Attendance Is Essential Function of Most Jobs
Recent decisions from the Second, Fifth, and Eighth Circuit Courts of Appeals exemplify the growing consensus amongst courts that even employees with a disability are generally required to comply with company attendance policies. While employers may need to provide leave as a reasonable accommodation, many courts generally agree that regular, reliable attendance is an essential…
No Adverse Employment Action, No Failure-to-Accommodate Claim, Tenth Circuit Rules
The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) includes within its definition of “discriminate,” an employer’s failure to provide a reasonable accommodation to a qualified individual with a disability. But, is a failure to accommodate standing alone—absent an adverse employment action—enough to establish an ADA failure-to-accommodate claim? For example, if an employer fails to accommodate a wheelchair-bound…
Your Presence Is Required: Employee Unable to Travel to Job Site Was Not “Qualified” Within the Meaning of the ADA
In recent years, particularly with technology making it easier for employees to work remotely, courts have struggled to determine whether onsite attendance is an essential job function under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). This question is often dispositive because only qualified individuals—those who can perform a job’s essential functions with or without a reasonable accommodation—are protected by the ADA. A federal court in South Carolina recently ruled that an employee who could not get to his worksite for a six-month period could not perform the essential functions of his job and thus his employer did not run afoul of the ADA in terminating his employment. Dunn v. Faithful+Gould Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-04382 (June 18, 2018).
Continue Reading Your Presence Is Required: Employee Unable to Travel to Job Site Was Not “Qualified” Within the Meaning of the ADA