A federal appeals court in Tennessee recently upheld an order dismissing a former teacher’s disability bias lawsuit, finding his failure to engage in discussions with his employer over alternative accommodations doomed his claim. The teacher alleged the school board had unlawfully refused to let him continue working from home after the district returned to in-person teaching following the COVID-19 pandemic. The district court rejected the claim, and the appeals court agreed.
Not Coming In
Dr. Harold Smith worked for the Shelby County Board of Education (SCBE) as a public schoolteacher in Memphis, Tennessee. He requested to be allowed to telework while recovering from organ transplant surgery. He provided medical information indicating he was immunocompromised and asked to be allowed to continue working from home as an accommodation.
In response, the school district proposed several on-premises work locations where Smith could be isolated from contact with other employees and students. Alternatively, the school district suggested he apply for extended sick leave. He objected to the proposals and later resigned after he was suspended for not returning to the worksite. He then sued the school board for failure to accommodate under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the case made its way to the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Communication Breakdown
A panel of judges from the 6th Circuit unanimously held that the lower court had properly granted summary judgment (dismissal without a trial) to the SCBE, noting that the lower court properly decided Smith had caused a breakdown in communication. The court further noted that “Smith chose silence over working with the SCBE to find a meaningful solution that would reconcile his health-related limitations with the SCBE’s in-person or on-site requirements.” According to the 6th Circuit, “Considering that the SCBE readily met with Smith and crafted possible accommodations that took into account the health risk at the heart of Smith’s request, the SCBE cannot now be held responsible for Smith’s withdrawal from the process.”
By stopping communications with the school and insisting on working from home, Smith failed to demonstrate that the alternative accommodations were ineffective and thus failed to meet his obligation to engage in the interactive process envisioned under the ADA. Notably, the medical information provided to the school district recommended that he work in an isolated area but didn’t state that he needed to remain in his home.
The court’s opinion is a good illustration of the principle that, although qualified employees are entitled to a reasonable accommodation under the ADA, they aren’t necessarily entitled to their preferred or most favored accommodation. Harold Smith v. Shelby Cnty. Bd. of Educ., No. 23-5815 (6th Cir., 2024).
Bottom Line
If you receive an ADA accommodation request, you should engage the employee who made the request in a mutual exchange about the individual’s medical condition and how the condition can be accommodated to allow the employee to perform essential job functions. As always, documentation is essential to show you followed the process. You should maintain a record of the information provided and the accommodations asked for and offered, as well as the conclusions reached about the effectiveness and reasonableness of the accommodations under consideration.
Nathan Whatley is an attorney with McAfee & Taft in Oklahoma City. He can be reached at nathan.whatley@mcafeetaft.com.