Applying for Other Jobs Kills an Employee's Stress-related Reasonable Accommodation Claim

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
Contact

A Southern District of Texas court recently issued an opinion which shows that an employee may take actions during a leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) which preclude any future reasonable accommodation claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  In Adetimehin v. Healix Infusion Therapy, Inc., the plaintiff failed to show she was disabled under the ADA because her medical provider's recommendation and her own actions negated her claim that her disability substantially limited the major life activity of working. Specifically, she had applied for other full-time jobs at the same time she was requesting an extended leave of absence as a reasonable accommodation from her employer.

Background

Funmilayo Adetimehin was a medical benefits administrator employed by Healix Infusion Therapy, Inc. Ms. Adetimehin suffered from an aneurysm in October 2011. At that time, she took four weeks of FMLA leave for a surgery and recovery. Approximately one year later, in the fall of 2012, Ms. Adetimehin received counseling and discipline on several occasions for poor performance, and in December 2012 she was hospitalized again for treatment of her aneurysm. After she returned to work in January 2013, Ms. Adetimehin filed a written grievance complaining that her supervisor was bullying her. The supervisor was demoted.

Also in January 2013, Ms. Adetimehin requested additional FMLA leave because of stress and depression, both of which were allegedly caused by the bullying. Ms. Adetimehin's medical provider recommended eight weeks of leave and a follow-up period of part-time leave. Only the eight weeks of full-time FMLA leave was approved, and Ms. Adetimehin was absent from January 4 through March 5, 2013. On the last day of her leave, Ms. Adetimehin's medical provider requested an extension through April 3, 2013. The employer responded that Adetimehin's twelve weeks of FMLA were set to expire on March 28, 2013, and that if Ms. Adetimehin did not return to work prior to that date, the employer would consider her to have voluntarily terminated her employment. Ms. Adetimehin did not contact her employer or return to work.

Instead, Ms. Adetimehin filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging that her employer had failed to reasonably accommodate her disability by denying the four weeks of part-time work that she requested after her full-time absence under the FMLA. This complaint was the basis of her lawsuit. The employer moved for summary judgment, which the court granted.

Law and Analysis

In a reasonable accommodation claim, the plaintiff must first establish that she has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a history or record of such impairment, or is perceived by others as having such impairment. "Working" can be a major life activity that is substantially limited by a disability.

In this case, Ms. Adetimehin asserted that she suffered from two physical disabilities (hypertension and cerebral aneurysm) and two mental disabilities (depression and anxiety). However, the court found that Ms. Adetimehin failed to put forth any evidence that her disabilities substantially limited a major life activity. The court pointed out that struggles with a specific job or employer do not rise to a qualifying disability under the ADA.

Ms. Adetimehin's case had two chief deficiencies. First, Ms. Adetimehin's medical provider stated that Ms. Adetimehin was capable of working part-time with the defendant in order to better learn to handle stress, and that her stress was related only to working with the defendant and not with working in general. Second, during her FMLA leave, Ms. Adetimehin inadvertently supported her medical provider's latter opinion by searching for full-time work.

Taken together, these deficiencies showed that Ms. Adetimehin was not substantially limited from working, but rather was only unable to perform in the particular job she had with the defendant.

Conclusion

In this case, the plaintiff failed to show she was disabled under the ADA because of her medical provider's recommendations and her own job search. Taken together, these facts showed that the plaintiff was capable of working, just not for the defendant. This, in turn, contradicted her claim that her disability substantially limited the major life activity of working.

However, while illustrative, Ms. Adetimehin's case is not indicative of a trend. After the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, it is difficult to attack a reasonable accommodation claim on the basis of whether the employee is disabled under the ADA. Navigating the ADA and understanding your obligations as an employer in the area of reasonable accommodation is an area laden with dangers. Hinshaw & Culbertson attorneys are available to answer any questions you may have. With questions on this case, please contact Evan Bonnett of Hinshaw's Rockford office.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
Contact
more
less

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide