Employee’s Request to Move from Rotating Shift to Straight Shift not a “Reasonable Accommodation” under the ADA

by Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently addressed an issue of concern frequently raised by employers: whether allowing an employee to move from rotating shifts to straight daytime work is a required “reasonable accommodation” under the ADA.  Kallail v. Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc., 8th Cir., No. 11-2202, September 4, 2012. In that case, the Court held that the rotating shift was an essential function of the relevant job, and that therefore, the answer was No.

Terri Kallail was employed by Alliant Energy Corporate Services (AECS), and held the position of Resource Coordinator at a company Distribution Dispatch Center (DDC) in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.  Employees at the DDC monitor the distribution of electricity, gas, and steam throughout a service area, and handle outages and other emergency situations to maintain the integrity of the systems.  In order to provide adequate coverage, Coordinators at the DDC work in teams of two on 9-week schedules that rotate between 8- and 12-hour shifts, and between day and night shifts.  The dual purposes of the rotating shifts were to provide adequate experience and training for the Coordinators, and to enhance non-work life by spreading the less desirable shifts among all Coordinators on a rotating basis.

Kallail is a Type I, insulin dependent diabetic.  During the fall of 2004, she was having increased difficulties managing her diabetes while working the rotating shifts.  In November of that year, her physician completed a medical certification that recommended that Kallail work only straight day shifts.  That request was denied in a letter in which AECS stated that the Coordinator’s essential functions include rotating shifts to support operations 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to meet company safety requirements.  However, as an alternative, AECS said that it would consider reassigning Kallail to a vacant position with a straight day shift.  In August 2005, the company identified three such positions, all of which were rejected by Kallail, because one required walking, which she had difficulty with, one paid less than the Coordinator position, and the third would have required to her relocate or commute a significant distance.

In September 2005, Kallail took FMLA leave for surgery.  While on leave, she applied for a position two job grades higher than the Coordinator position, and was unsuccessful.  Kallail returned from leave in February 2006 with a restriction that she work only an 8-hour day shift schedule until May.  At that point, AECS gave to Kallail a temporary light-duty assignment that was different from her Coordinator duties.  When the light-duty assignment expired, Kallail’s physician again recommended that Kallail be permanently limited to straight day shifts to protect her from medial risks and complications in the future.  Although AECS offered a number of other positions to Kallail, Kallail refused them and instead, began to receive long term disability benefits in January 2007.

She then filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, and ultimately filed a lawsuit, alleging that AECS failed to provide her with a reasonable accommodation.  The district court granted summary judgment in favor of AECS, and that decision was upheld by the Eighth Circuit on appeal.

The American with Disabilities Act (ADA) makes it unlawful for a private employer to discriminate against any “qualified individual on the basis of a disability.”  Discrimination under the ADA specifically includes failure to make a “reasonable accommodation to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability.”  To prove oneself to be a qualified individual under the ADA, an employee must have the requisite skill and training for the position, and must be able to perform the essential functions of the position with or without accommodation.

In reviewing the lower court’s dismissal of the case, the Eighth Circuit began by reviewing the issue of whether Kallail could perform the essential functions of her Coordinator position, with or without an accommodation – if she could not, she would be unable to prove herself to be a “qualified individual with a disability” who was entitled to the protections of the ADA.

The Court first determined that the rotating shift was an essential function of the Coordinator position.  It found that AECS had included the rotating shift in its written job description, and that when the company had discussed with employees a proposal for creating two permanent straight day shift positions, employees objected.  (Avoiding employee complaints and maintaining morale are legitimate reasons for a company’s scheduling decision.)  Further, because courts allow companies to determine the most productive or efficient shift schedule for a facility, the Eighth Circuit determined that AECS’s designation of the rotating shift schedule as a critical element of the Coordinator position made that schedule an essential function of the position.  Because Kallail could not work a rotating shift, she was unable to fulfill the essential function of her job without an accommodation.

The Eighth Circuit then looked at whether Kallail could do the job with an accommodation.  To show that such was possible, Kallail would have to proffer a reasonable accommodation that would allow her to perform the essential functions of the job.  The reasonable accommodations proffered by Kallail were the straight day shift, and the promotion to a higher grade day-shift job.  The Court began by pointing out that while job restructuring is a possible accommodation under the ADA, an employer does not have to “reallocate or eliminate the essential functions of a job to accommodate a disabled employee.”  Therefore, Alliant did not have to allow Kallail to work the straight day shift that she requested.  Next, the Court stated that “reassignment to a vacant position may be a reasonable accommodation.”  Because Alliant offered a number of positions to Kallail, and Kallail did not provide evidence that the positions were inferior, or that a more suitable job was vacant, there was no requirement that Alliant provide a promotion to put Kallail into a day-shift job.

This case is an important one for employers because the company in this situation provided a number of opportunities to allow Kallail to return to work under circumstances that made allowance for her impairment.  Further, it had a detailed written job description that spelled out the essential functions of the job, precluding any dispute on that issue.  Finally, it engaged in the required interactive process by working with Kallail to try to identify other positions that were available and for which she was qualified.  Kallail’s unwillingness to accept those positions absolved AECS from liability in this circumstance.

Maria Greco Danaher is a shareholder in the Pittsburgh office of Ogletree Deakins. To read other case summaries and legislative updates, visit Maria’s blog at www.employmentlawmatters.net


Written by:

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. on:

Readers' Choice 2017
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:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.