An employer was not required to provide a full-time assistant to a worker with disabilities as an ADA accommodation, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has reaffirmed in Williams v. Revco Discount Drug Centers, Inc., d.b.a. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 13-11673 (11th Cir. Jan. 14, 2014).
Weldon Williams, a CVS pharmacist, filed suit against his employer. He alleged that it violated ADA when it failed to engage in the law’s interactive process and refused to provide his requested accommodation — a full-time pharmacy technician. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia granted summary judgment for CVS on both claims and Williams appealed.
The 11th Circuit upheld the lower court’s summary judgment on Williams’ interactive process claim. The interactive process is an informal, interactive discussion between the employer and employee (or applicant) aimed at finding a reasonable accommodation. The employer’s obligation to participate is usually triggered when an employee requests an accommodation. While a failure to participate is not a violation of the law per se, it can be used as evidence of discrimination.
Williams alleged that when CVS denied his request for a full-time assistant, it ended the interactive process. After denying a request, an employer should continue to look for an accommodation that would be reasonable and allow the employee to do his job.
However, CVS did not cause the breakdown here, the court found. Williams admitted that CVS sent him multiple emails and letters seeking medical documentation to support his claim that he needed assistance. Because he never submitted paperwork outlining the type of help he might need, summary judgment was appropriate, the court said.
The appeals court also upheld summary judgment on Williams’ failure-to-accommodate allegation. The claim failed because Williams had told CVS that the only accommodation that would allow him to perform his job was a full-time pharmacy technician. Therefore, he was not qualified for the job and thus not eligible to bring an ADA claim, the employer argued. The court agreed.
ADA regulations define a “qualified individual” as one who can perform the essential functions of his or her job with or without reasonable accommodations. “Williams’s own deposition testimony indicates that he was not,” the appeals court said. Essential functions are a worker’s fundamental job duties and an accommodation is not reasonable if it eliminates essential functions or places an undue hardship on the employer.
ADA does not require CVS to permanently provide Williams with full-time technical support because this would require it to eliminate essential functions of the staff pharmacist job and reallocate those functions to other employees, the 11th Circuit concluded.
For more on reasonable accommodations, visit Thompson’s HR Compliance Expert.