First Circuit Finds Termination of Employee for Inability to Work Rotating Schedule Did Not Violate the Americans with Disabilities Act

by FordHarrison
Contact

FordHarrison

Executive Summary: Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in Sepulveda-Vargas v. Caribbean Restaurants, LLC, affirmed a lower court’s decision in favor of the employer in a lawsuit alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), finding that the plaintiff, an assistant manager, was not a “qualified individual” under the ADA based on his inability to work rotating shifts, since the ability to work rotating shifts was an essential job function of the assistant manager position. The Court of Appeals further found that a temporary accommodation, which permitted the plaintiff to work a fixed schedule, did “not mean that [the employer] conceded that rotating shifts was a ‘non-essential’ function.” Finally, the First Circuit found that the employee’s claim of a retaliatory hostile environment was properly dismissed, since the district court found that “collectively [the alleged incidents] amount[ed] to nothing more than the petty insults and minor annoyances which are insufficient to constitute an adverse employment action under the ADA.” The First Circuit is the federal appeals court with jurisdiction over the federal district courts in Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico and Rhode Island.

Background of the Case

Sepulveda-Vargas (Sepulveda) was employed by Caribbean Restaurants, LLC (Caribbean) as an assistant manager. Caribbean operates a chain of fast food restaurants throughout Puerto Rico. During his employment, while attempting to make a bank deposit, Sepulveda “was attacked at gunpoint, hit over the head, and had his car stolen.” As a result of the incident he was diagnosed with “post-traumatic stress disorder and major depression.” Thereafter, Sepulveda requested, as an accommodation, that he be provided with a “fixed work schedule” and assigned to a location in a lower crime area. Caribbean requires all managers to “rotate among three distinct work shifts.” Caribbean initially granted the accommodation, but later informed Sepulveda that he would be required to work rotating shifts like other managers. Sepulveda subsequently resigned and sued Caribbean claiming the company violated the ADA by failing to provide him with a permanent fixed work schedule as a reasonable accommodation and by retaliating against him for requesting a reasonable accommodation, which created a “hostile work environment.” The lower court granted Caribbean’s motion for summary judgment, finding that Sepulveda was not a “qualified individual” under the ADA and that the alleged acts of retaliation were insufficient to support his hostile environment claim. Sepulveda appealed the lower court’s ruling to the First Circuit.

The First Circuit’s Decision

The First Circuit began its analysis by reviewing the prima facie elements of a failure to accommodate claim under the ADA, noting a plaintiff must establish that: “(1) he is a handicapped person within the meaning of the Act; (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 reasonably accommodate it upon request.”

The Court of Appeals noted that the lower court focused on whether Sepulveda was qualified to perform the essential job functions of a Caribbean assistant manager in light of his requested accommodation for “fixed shifts.” The First Circuit next found that “an essential function” is one that is “‘fundamental’ to a position” as opposed to a “marginal task.” The Court of Appeals further noted that the essential function inquiry is “fact-sensitive” and “must be determined on a case-by-case basis.” In making this determination, the First Circuit noted the ADA directs courts to consider the “employer’s judgment as to what functions of a job are essential” and to accept as evidence of a position’s essential job functions a written job description prepared by the employer “before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job.” In addition to considering the employer’s judgment, the Court of Appeals noted the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) regulations that impact the essential function inquiry. The EEOC regulations set forth several considerations which “include (but are not limited to) factors like ‘[t]he consequences of not requiring the incumbent to perform the function[,]’ ‘[t]he work experience of past incumbents in the job[,]’ and ‘[t]he current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs.’”

In finding that the ability to work a rotating shift was an essential function of a Caribbean assistant manager, the Court of Appeals first noted it was “uncontested” from “Caribbean’s perspective [that], the ability to work rotating shifts was essential” as it was “necessary for the equal distribution of work among the management staff,” a fact Sepulveda admitted in his deposition. The Court of Appeals also noted Sepulveda’s admission that he and other Caribbean assistant managers were responsible for working rotating shifts. Further, the First Circuit noted that the job application completed by Sepulveda made it clear that all management employees “had to be able to work different shifts in different restaurants” and that a newspaper ad for the position “listed the need to work rotating shifts as a requirement.” The Court of Appeals concluded its analysis of the failure to accommodate claim by noting its agreement with the lower court that the temporary accommodation provided to Sepulveda was not tantamount to a concession that “rotating shifts was a ‘non-essential’ function,” since a contrary finding “would unacceptably punish employers from doing more than the ADA requires….”

Analyzing Sepulveda’s retaliation claim, the Court of Appeals noted that, as part of his prima facie case, the plaintiff had the burden to show that “a reasonable employee would have found the challenged action materially adverse, which in this context means it well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” The Court of Appeals further noted that a retaliatory action is not material unless it “produce[s] ‘a significant, not trivial harm’” and that “‘petty slights, minor annoyances, and simple lack of good manners will not [normally] create such deterrence.’” Examining the various alleged acts of retaliation cited by Sepulveda, the Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court that no discrete act was “material” and “[c]ollectively, these incidents amount to nothing more than the petty insults and minor annoyances which are insufficient to constitute an adverse employment action under the ADA.” The First Circuit concluded by affirming the lower court’s order granting summary judgment to the employer.

Employers’ Bottom Line: The First Circuit’s decision in Caribbean illustrates the importance of employers having written job descriptions that set forth the essential functions of each position which bear directly on the issue of whether an applicant/employee is a “qualified individual” under the ADA. Moreover, the Caribbean decision is helpful authority for employers who wish to temporarily excuse an employee’s compliance with one or more essential functions as a short-term accommodation.

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.

© FordHarrison | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

FordHarrison
Contact
more
less

FordHarrison 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):
hide

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.

Security

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.