What exactly Is The Interactive Process For Disabled Employees.
Employment Discrimination Attorney Answer: Can my employer take away my disability
accommodation? Is my manager allowed to ask me to resubmit my accommodation
sheet relating to my disability? Can I be fired because of my disability?
The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) makes it illegal for
your employer to discriminate against an employee because of that worker’s
disability or perceived disability. The ADA requires an employer to
provide “reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations
of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability … unless [the
employer] can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship.”
42 U.S.C. 12112(b)(5)(A). The ADA defines
(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one
or more of the major life activities of such individual;
(B) a record of such impairment; or
(C) being regarded as having such an impairment.
42 U.S.C. § 12102(2). This means that even if a person does not consider
themselves disabled, if their boss perceives them as disabled, there may
still be a claim under the ADA. What does this look like? Sometimes bosses show
their prejudice against disabled people by making comments about their
disability. Other times, the boss or supervisor lets co-workers harass an
employee because of his or her disability or work accommodation. One way to get
The Spitz Law Firm’s employment
discrimination lawyers fired up is to not even give an employee a chance because
of their disability. Far too often, people are terminated before they are given
a real chance to prove themselves at work because of a supervisor’s prejudice
and preconceived notions about what disabled workers can and cannot do. (See Do
I Have A Disability Discrimination Case?; Does
My Boss Have To Give Me An Interpreter?; Best
Disability Discrimination Lawyer Answer: What Is My Job Required To Do Once I
Notify Them Of My Disability?).
When an employee makes a request for a
reasonable accommodation, an employer must engage in the interactive process.
This basically means that an employer must work with the employee to try to
come up with a solution that works for the company and also empowers an
employee to do their job successfully. Obviously, this involves a dialogue. In Keith v. Cty. of Oakland, 703 F.3d
918, 929 (6th Cir.2013), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal, which covers
Ohio, held on this point:
Finally, we turn to the ADA’s requirement that an employer
engage in the interactive process. The duty to engage in the interactive
process with a disabled employee is mandatory and “requires communication and
good-faith exploration of possible accommodations.” Kleiber v. Honda of
Am. Mfg., 485 F.3d 862, 871 (6th Cir.2007); see also 29
C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). “The purpose of this process is to ‘identify the
precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable
accommodations that could overcome those limitations.’” Kleiber, 485
F.3d at 871 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3)).
Now, this does not mean that an
employer absolutely has to give each and every employee the accommodation that
is asked for. Instead, the employer and employee have to work together to
figure out a reasonable accommodation. An employer does not have to give an
accommodation if that accommodation would create an undue hardship, meaning
that it would disrupt the business or cost too much for that particular
employer. Thus, what might an undue hardship for a mom and pop store might not
be a hardship for, say, Wal-mart, speaking of which…
is an example of someone who was discriminated
against because of his disability. Paul has a severe developmental delay, visual
impairment, anxiety and is deaf. In other words, he was disabled. Paul is
non-verbal, but his family and job coaches communicate with him using various
forms of sign language. Paul’s first job during high school was working in a
laundromat, he later worked at a delicatessen. But, his most successful role
was at Wal-Mart.
He worked at
Wal-Mart as a cart pusher. Paul started working for Wal-Mart in Wisconsin in
January 1999. He had reasonable accommodations to help him perform his job
successfully. Wal-Mart agreed that he could work with a job aide, he would not
have to handle fragile merchandise, and he would not be assigned to do tasks
that he was incapable of handling. Paul’s family arranged for the job coaches
to go to work with Paul. The job coaches were paid through the Medicaid waiver
program. He worked as a cart pusher with no issues for 16 years. In fact, Paul
received multiple pay raises and satisfactory performance reviews. In his 16th
year at work, in 2015, Wal-Mart hired a new store manager, Jeff Scheurell. Scheurell
started on June 10, 2015. Keep this date in mind as it will be important.
coaches stated that they helped him stay safe while in the parking lot. Since
Paul could not hear, the coaches would look out for cars while he was
collecting the carts. They also helped him stay focused on the tasks at hand.
Most of Paul’s job was collecting carts, wiping them down if they were dirty or
wet, picking up trash in the parking lot and breaking down boxes. According to
the trial testimony, about once a week Paul would carry a customer’s groceries
to his or her car and would load and unload the cart for the customer.
In one of Paul’s
performance evaluations from 2003, one of his managers noted that “Paul is very
dependable and hardworking. Constantly maintaining carts in corrals” and “loved
to keep busy.” Paul’s last evaluation stated, “Paul is a pleasure to work with.
Paul knows his expectations and does his job. Paul gets along with his fellow
associates and is friendly to customers. Paul’s attendance is decent, not
having missed any of his shifts.” Paul sounds like a great employee that anyone
would be lucky to have.
On June 12, 2015,
Scheurell called a meeting with Roseann Slaght, Paul’s legal guardian. If you
remember the date above, this is a mere two days after Scheurell became store
manager. How much time could Scheurell, as the boss, had time to actually
observe and evaluate each individual employee by this point? Not much, right?
At this meeting Scheurell
told Roseann that in order for Scheurell to continue working, Paul needed to
fill out a new request for accommodations that included Scheurell’s personal
medical information. Scheurell also told Roseann that Paul was going to go on a
paid suspension until the documentation was completed and returned to the
However, this was
an odd request since none of Paul’s medical conditions had changed. Paul also
did not need any more reasonable accommodations at that time, aside from the
accommodations that he successfully utilized for 16 years. However odd the
request, Roseann filled out the paperwork and submitted a new packet of
requests for reasonable accommodations on July 9, 2015. Paul’s doctor signed a
statement that Paul’s impairments, his limitations, and his need for the
accommodation of a job coach to aid his seeing and hearing.
Wal-Mart twice to check the status of the renewed accommodation request. Paul
was eager to return to work. Roseann never received a response from Wal-Mart.
Instead, when she tried to log onto the employee portal on August 1, 2015, she
was denied access.
To make matters worse, Wal-Mart only paid Paul
for the first two weeks of his “paid suspension.” For our employment lawyer’s
perspective this appears to be a termination by the employer – he is no longer
permitted to work, is not being paid, and was kicked out of the system. Hello, wrongful
And, what kind of a horrible human being is Scheurell?
Not only did he get rid of a loyal 16-year employee because of his disability,
but he did not even have the courage to tell Paul and his family directly.
Basically, at this point, Wal-Mart refused to
engage in the interactive process. It’s suspicious that Paul’s accommodations
are suddenly a problem after successfully working for 16 years. Indeed, the
employer cannot successfully argue that accommodations that it provided for 16
years were not reasonable or that such disability work accommodations all of a
sudden became an undue hardship.
Another the giant
red flag is the fact that they stopped all communications after receiving the
renewed request for accommodations. Refusing to even discuss the potential
accommodations is not engaging in the interactive process. This violates the
Roseann went to the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), to file a claim of discrimination. (See Top
Employment Law Attorney: Do Not File With The EEOC Without Doing This First; File
With The EEOC Or Get A Lawyer? Call The Right Attorney; Should
I Get A Lawyer To Help Me File An EEOC Charge?; and Should
I File With The EEOC On My Own? Call The Right Attorney). The EEOC conducted an investigation and attempted to
start the mediation process with Wal-Mart. The attempts at mediation were
On March 16,
2017, the EEOC gave Paul the Right to Sue Letter finding reasonable cause to
believe that the ADA was violated. On September 26, 2017, the Paul initiated a
lawsuit against Wal-Mart for violating the ADA and failing to provide a
reasonable accommodation for Paul which would allow him to perform his
In order for Paul
to be successful in his ADA claim Paul must establish that, first, he is a
qualified individual with a disability. This means that Paul must demonstrate
that he can perform the essential functions of the employment position with or
without reasonable accommodation. Paul’s attorney claimed that Paul could push
carts from the corral to the store entrance without assistance, although he did
use a job coach. Second, Paul must assert that Wal-Mart was aware of his
disability. Clearly, in this case Wal-Mart was aware. Third, Paul must
demonstrate that Wal-Mart failed to reasonably accommodate his disability. This
means that the employer and the employee must participate in an interactive
process about appropriate and reasonable accommodations.
In cases in which
a disabled employee did not receive a reasonable accommodation, the employer
will be liable only if it bears responsibility for the breakdown of the
interactive process. Again, Wal-Mart really blew it on this one. Wal-Mart
pretty much ghosted Paul’s family after they submitted their updated reasonable
request form. The real kicker is that Paul did not ask for anything new, he
just wanted to keep the accommodations that were already approved.
case made it all the way to trial. If Wal-Mart were smart, they would have
tried to settle this case with Paul. The facts are just not in their favor at
all, and a jury agreed. On October 10, 2019 after a nearly four-day trial, a
federal jury in Madison, Wisconsin found in against Wal-Mart, and awarded Paul
five million dollars. That’s an incredible amount of money. There’s no
question that money will go a long way to ensure that Paul gets the care that
The fact of the
matter is that employers have a legal obligation to work with employees who
need accommodations for disabilities. The silver lining of Paul’s story is that
even after losing his job for Wal-Mart he went out and got a new job. He now
delivers newspapers twice a week. After the case, a reporter asked Paul’s
guardian, Roseann what she thought about the verdict. She said that “we are
happy about the ruling, but the money is not what matters. We hope that Paul’s
case can inspire others with disabilities. Everybody deserves a chance to have
a job. Just because somebody might need an accommodation or even a person to be
an accommodation, doesn’t mean they can’t do the job.”
I couldn’t have
said it better myself. Money will not erase all of the pain of losing a job,
but it sure does help. Thankfully, Paul’s guardian stood up for Paul, and
asserted his rights on his behalf.
Having to live with a disability
is difficult enough without worrying about the effect it may have on your job.
If you are disabled or your employer perceives you as being disabled; and you
have been fired, wrongfully
discriminated against, demoted, wrongfully disciplined, denied wages, or even think that you
might need a disability
then call the right
schedule a free and confidential consultation. The best option is
not to wait. Call our office at 866-797-6040. The Spitz Law Firm, and its
attorneys are experienced and dedicated to protecting disabled
employees’ rights under ADA and Ohio employment law.
This employment law website
is an advertisement. The materials available at the top of this page and on
this employment law website are for informational purposes only and not for the
purpose of providing legal advice. If you are still asking, “how do I get a
work accommodation for my disability?”, “am I disabled under the ADA?”, “what
should I do if my boss refuses to accommodate my disability” or “can my boss
fired me for being disabled”, it would be best for you to contact an Ohio
to obtain advice with respect to disability discrimination questions or any
particular employment law issue. Use and access to this employment law website
or any of the links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client
relationship. The legal opinions expressed at or through this site are the
opinions of the individual lawyer and may not reflect the opinions of The Spitz
Law Firm, attorney, Brian Spitz or any individual attorney.