A job function can be “essential” for Americans with Disabilities Act purposes even if it is rarely performed, recent case law illustrates.
To qualify for ADA’s job protections, employees must be able to perform all of their job’s essential functions, with or without a reasonable accommodation. “Essential functions” are defined as the fundamental job duties of an employment position. Courts generally agree that the only factor that matters in determining whether a function is essential is its importance; the frequency with which it is performed is irrelevant.
One such case is Hennagir v. Utah Department of Corrections, which the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals heard in 2009. The case involved a prison employee who could not pass the employer’s required physical safety training because of her disability. She argued that it was not an essential function because she would rarely, if ever, have to protect herself against an inmate attack. The court disagreed, finding that because the consequences of not being able to protect one’s self could be dire, the training was essential.
Nine years earlier, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had considered the case of a sheriff who was fired because an injury left her unable to restrain inmates. The court dismissed her claim, finding that it was clearly an essential function of a sheriff’s job to be able to restrain inmates (Hoskins v. Oakland County Sheriff’s Dept., 227 F.3d 719 (6th Cir. 2000)).
Now, the 6th Circuit has upheld the Hoskins ruling in Wardia v. Justice and Public Safety Cabinet Department of Juvenile Justice, No. 12-5337, 2013 WL 28094 (6th Cir. Jan. 3, 2013), a case involving an employee at a juvenile detention center.
Facts of the Case
John Wardia worked at the Campbell County Regional Juvenile Detention Center. When he injured his neck, the center reassigned him to a light-duty position — the control room — because he could not physically restrain juveniles if necessary.
When it became clear that Wardia’s injury was permanent, he requested permanent assignment to the control room. The employer denied his request because the control room job was used as a rotating position to give employees a break from the working on the detention center’s floor. The center fired him.
Wardia sued, alleging disability discrimination, but the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky granted summary judgment for the employer. Relying on Hoskins, the court held that the ability to perform physical restraints was an “essential function” of Wardia’s job and that permanent assignment to the control room was not a reasonable accommodation.
Wardia appealed, arguing that he needed to restrain juveniles so rarely that the ability to do so could not be an essential function of his job.
The 6th Circuit disagreed, upholding the lower court’s ruling.
The potential for physical confrontation exists on a daily basis, the court explained. “Rarity alone will not support denial of summary judgment,” it said. “Here, inability to properly restrain juveniles could have serious consequences for the safety of staff and juveniles at the facility.”
Additionally, the appeals court agreed that permanent reassignment to the control room is unreasonable because ADA does not require employers to convert rotating or temporary positions into permanent positions. Furthermore, permanent assignment to the control room would mean reassigning Wardia’s essential functions to co-workers, leaving them with his share of physical restraints and direct juvenile contact, the court said. ADA only considers reassignment of marginal functions — not essential ones — a reasonable accommodation.
For the full story, visit http://hr.complianceexpert.com.