We have written before about the EEOC’s position that inflexible leave of absence policies may violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.  For example, as discussed in a prior blog entry, in July 2011, the EEOC settled a lawsuit filed against Verizon and a number of its subsidiaries, which claimed that Verizon violated the ADA with its progressive discipline policy that imposed discipline for all absences, including those absences caused by an employee’s ADA-covered disability.  To resolve the lawsuit, Verizon agreed to pay $20MM and to revise its attendance and ADA policies by providing exceptions to the no-fault attendance policy as reasonable accommodation for covered disabilities.

Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the 10^th Circuit disagreed, evidencing the reality that courts do not always follow the EEOC’s lead.  In Valdez v. McGill, the plaintiff employee (Doyle “Rocky” Boyle) missed work due to legitimate, recurrent health-related issues.  After he had exhausted his twelve weeks of available leave, Mr. Boyle submitted a note from his doctor, indicating that he would need an additional three weeks of leave.  He was terminated the next day for, among other things, excessive absenteeism.

Mr. Boyle sued, claiming that the company violated the ADA and the New Mexico Human Rights Act by not granting additional leave and for failing to engage in the interactive process of accommodation, as required by the ADA.  The Court disagreed, and set some interesting guidelines for determining when a request for leave is “reasonable” and for when, and to what extent, an employer must engage in the interactive process.

Please see full article below for more information.