When Pacific Bell service technician Clarence Allen became disabled, his doctor told the company the disability prevented Allen from performing anything other than sedentary work. Allen then asked Pacific Bell to accommodate his disability by allowing him to return to his service technician position without requiring him to climb poles and ladders.
Requested Accommodation Denied
Pacific Bell refused Allen’s accommodation request, saying that climbing poles and ladders was an essential function of the service technician job. The company then began searching for an appropriate position that would accommodate Allen’s physical restrictions.
While Pacific Bell was looking, Allen requested several times to be reinstated to his service technician position. The company said it would reconsider if Allen provided documentation that his medical condition had improved, but Allen never did.
400+ pages of state-specific, easy-read reference materials at your fingertips—fully updated! Check out the Guide to Employment Law for California Employers and get up to speed on everything you need to know.
Employee Claims ADA Violation
Employer Met Its ADA Obligations, Says Court
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has now upheld a dismissal of Allen’s ADA claim. Because Allen didn’t submit additional medical documentation to modify his doctor’s earlier report, Pacific Bell appropriately determined he was only qualified for desk work. And without updated medical information, the company had no obligation to engage in further interactive processes about the service technician position,the court said.
Also, ruled the court, once it was clear Allen couldn’t perform his old job’s essential functions, with or without an accommodation, Pacific Bell had to engage in an interactive process to find an alternative accommodation. While the company fulfilled its interactive duty, Allen didn’t cooperate—for example, he didn’t take tests required for certain positions. Thus, he forfeited any further rights to accommodation.
Finding an Accommodation
This case highlights the ADA requirement that employers engage in an interactive process with disabled employees to determine whether an appropriate accommodation exists. However, the ruling shows an employer’s obligations are not unlimited and that employees have certain obligations in the accommodation process, including cooperating in the interactive exchange.
To avoid claims that you haven’t fulfilled your ADA duties, be sure to have detailed job descriptions that set out the essential functions of job positions. When a disabled employee requests an accommodation, look carefully at whether the employee can perform the essential job functions, and be certain to seekinput from the employee and medical practitioners. Keep in mind that if you can’t accommodate the employee in their own job, you must examine whether you have other positions the employee could perform. Also, note that you don’t have to grant the accommodation an employee requests if another accommodation would be equally effective.