When faced with a disabled employee’s request for accommodation, employers sometimes base their response to the request on whether the worker’s proposed accommodation presents an undue hardship to the business in terms of cost or disruption. However, before reaching the undue hardship stage, employers should determine whether the proposed accommodation would allow the employee to perform the essential functions of the job as defined under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Last week, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (which includes North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia) affirmed dismissal of a discrimination lawsuit, concluding that the plaintiff was not a qualified individual under the ADA.
In Robinson v. Mountaire Farms of NC Corp., the plaintiff was wounded in a shooting. His doctor released him to work with restrictions that limited his ability to walk or use one of his arms. The employer denied the accommodation request because the plaintiff’s job required him to continuously move up and down the production line and to step in and handle chicken processing when a worker he supervised was absent. He alleged that the company’s requirement that he be released to work without restrictions violated the ADA.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the claim on summary judgment. The court emphasized the plaintiff’s admission during his deposition that he was unable to perform essential functions of his job. The court noted that the full recovery requirement was not applied to all employees, but it was legitimate in the plaintiff’s case due to the nature of his injuries and job requirements.
When analyzing accommodation requests, the employer should first determine if there are potential accommodations that will allow the employee to perform the job’s essential functions. If the answer to that question is no, the analysis stops there. The company can deny the accommodation request even if it does not meet the undue hardship standard.
[View source.]
