The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires employers to engage in an interactive, good-faith process to determine if reasonable accommodations can be made for disabled employees that would allow them to perform the essential functions of the job. A recent case decided by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals (which has jurisdiction over North Carolina) gives employers a good example of the reasonable accommodation process and the legal analysis of the employer’s efforts.
Background
Jay Hannah was a delivery driver for United Parcel Services (UPS) and had been a UPS employee in Parkersburg, West Virginia, since 2008. He began experiencing pain in his lower back, hip, and buttocks in December 2017, which was diagnosed as hip bursitis.
At the time, Hannah was assigned to a delivery route he bid for under the governing collective bargaining agreement that, as UPS had determined, required him to drive a truck with a 600-cubic-foot capacity to carry all the packages to be delivered on his route. That size truck, however, had a stiff suspension, which made for a rough ride that aggravated his injury.
After UPS accommodated his request for a better padded seat, he still could only work sporadically until October 2018, when his physician diagnosed him with sacroiliitis and cleared him to return to work as long as he avoided prolonged sitting until November 1, 2018. He then made a request to UPS for an accommodation under the ADA to provide him with a smaller vehicle, a van with a cargo capacity of 300 to 400 cubic feet, which would have a softer suspension and provide him with an easier ride.
Alternatively, Hannah requested an “inside job” he was qualified for within a 30-mile radius until he could return to his route. UPS officials met with him, conferred among themselves, and determined UPS couldn’t provide him with the smaller vehicle because such a van would have an insufficient capacity to serve his route.
So, providing Hannah with such a van would require him to either give a part of his route to another driver or complete the route himself in multiple trips. UPS found neither option to be feasible, as each would violate the governing collective bargaining agreement.
With respect to inside work, UPS advised Hannah it had no openings at the time but would consider him for any such opening when it occurred. While UPS denied him the accommodations he requested, it did allow him to retain his job and take leave without pay until he could return to work. After several months, he did return to work, continuing to drive the route he was assigned to in a truck suited for that route.
After returning to work, Hannah sued UPS under the ADA for its failure to provide him with either of the accommodations he requested. The trial court granted UPS’s request for case dismissal without a trial, concluding Hannah failed to demonstrate he could perform the essential functions of his job with the accommodations requested. The court also concluded that the leave of absence UPS provided was in fact a reasonable accommodation, even though it wasn’t one Hannah had requested.
Hannah then appealed to the 4th Circuit.
On appeal, the key issue was whether Hannah, who was temporarily disabled, requested a reasonable accommodation under the ADA and whether UPS, in providing a different accommodation than what he requested, complied with its duties in response to his request.
The Essential Functions
An accommodation isn’t reasonable if it doesn’t enable the employee to perform the essential functions of the job. In this case, Hannah couldn’t show his proposed accommodation would allow him to perform the essential functions of his job. UPS designed the delivery routes and assigned trucks to them with a capacity it determined was needed to complete the routes. And when an employee bid on a route, the essential functions of driving that route were so defined.
Consequently, when Hannah sought an accommodation for his injury, part of his burden of demonstrating its reasonableness was to show it would allow him to perform the essential functions of the position. In satisfying that burden, he isn’t free simply to redefine the job. The ADA provides that consideration must be given to the employer’s judgment as to what functions of a job are essential.
In this case, UPS had determined a larger-capacity truck was necessary on the route and that Hannah’s request for a smaller truck or van wouldn’t allow him to perform the essential functions, meaning it wasn’t reasonable.
In addition, Hannah hadn’t shown there was a vacancy that would allow him to do inside work. As an alternative, UPS decided to place him on an indefinite unpaid leave of absence until he could return to work. He complained that he didn’t want medical leave and it wasn’t the accommodation he requested, but the employer has ultimate discretion in choosing among reasonable accommodations.
The court noted it was also clear the ADA specifically authorizes unpaid leave as a reasonable accommodation. While a period of unpaid leave might not always be a reasonable accommodation, such leave may be reasonable if the disability that interferes with an employee’s capacity to complete assigned tasks is temporary and there’s reason to believe a leave of absence will allow the employee to recover and return to work.
In sum, the court determined the lower court didn’t err in concluding that Hannah failed to demonstrate he requested a reasonable accommodation that would allow him to perform the essential functions of his job.
The Interactive Process
Finally, Hannah contended that UPS didn’t engage in an interactive process with him to determine if a reasonable accommodation existed. The 4th Circuit shot down this argument, and its decision gives a good illustration of what the interactive process should look like.
Hannah agreed that he first made his request for a reasonable accommodation under the ADA on or about September 6, 2018. Before that date, he requested that UPS fit his truck with a more padded and supportive seat to mitigate any undue jarring of his buttocks, and UPS accommodated that request.
But he agreed September was when he made his request for an ADA accommodation. The record showed that UPS acknowledged the request and asked that Hannah’s medical provider complete a medical information form. His physician did complete the form, indicating he had sacroiliitis and was currently unable to perform all of the functions of his position based on his being “unable to tolerate riding on a seat.”
And his physician noted that Hannah’s only restriction was driving a truck and stated that he could return to work but should avoid prolonged sitting until November 1, 2018. Then, on October 19, 2018, Hannah met with several UPS officials, including its Human Resources (HR) manager, to discuss his request for an accommodation. During that meeting, Hannah completed an “Accommodation Checklist,” on which he wrote that his medical restrictions prevented him from prolonged sitting in a full-size UPS truck that’s 500 cubic feet and above and that he was requesting a delivery van that has softer suspension.
In the Accommodation Checklist, Hannah also alternatively requested that he be transferred to another position that didn’t involve driving, such as a preload role or the night shift. Finally, he indicated he would be willing to commute within 30 miles of the UPS center in Marietta, Ohio.
After meeting with Hannah and receiving his Accommodation Checklist, the HR manager and other UPS employees reviewed and discussed his request for a smaller vehicle. After discussing and evaluating how many packages he was delivering on his route, they decided a smaller vehicle wouldn’t be a reasonable accommodation.
They also discussed how sharing Hannah’s route with other drivers wouldn’t be possible under the collective bargaining agreement, and Hannah’s driving the route in a smaller vehicle would involve multiple trips, which couldn’t be done in a timely manner, wouldn’t be cost-effective, and would implicate safety risks.
So, in a letter dated December 21, 2018, UPS informed Hannah it couldn’t grant his accommodation request but that it would continue to look for an available position for up to six months and that if his condition or abilities changed in the future, or if he were to become aware of an open position he believed he was capable of performing, he should contact UPS so it could reevaluate the situation.
The 4th Circuit concluded all of these steps were more than enough, and UPS had no additional duty under the ADA.
The Bottom Line
This case is a good reminder that when an employee requests a reasonable accommodation, it doesn’t mean it has to be granted, but it does mean you must go through a process to determine if the request is a reasonable one that would allow the employee to perform the essential functions and, if not, what alternatives might be available.
In this case, the court recognized the employer did jump through those hoops in making its decisions.
Richard Rainey is a partner at Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP in Charlotte, North Carolina. He can be reached at richard.rainey@wbd-us.com.