“Ms. Dorothy Barrett-Taylor sued Birch Care Community, LLC under the Americans with Disabilities Act, claiming disability discrimination, failure to provide a reasonable accommodation, and retaliation. The claims ultimately turned on Ms. Barrett-Taylor’s refusal to perform the demands of her job.” So said the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in starting its decision in Barrett-Taylor v. Birch Care Community, LLC, No. 22-1013, 2023 WL 2823531 (10th Cir. Apr. 7, 2023). This is not a good start for an employee.
Barrett-Taylor, who worked as an after-hours receptionist at Birch Care’s skilled nursing facility, injured herself when she fell at work. As a result of these injuries, Concentra Medical Centers provided treatment and ordered certain work limitations. When Barrett-Taylor refused a job assignment based on these limitations, the employer checked with Concentra, who lessened the limitations to allow Barrett-Taylor to perform the task at issue. When Barrett-Taylor subsequently reported added hip pain, so Concentra increased the work restrictions again to excuse the task in question. A few weeks later, Concentra lowered the work restrictions again and the employer instructed Barrett-Taylor to perform the task at issue. After Barrett-Taylor refused to perform the task, she met the manager to discuss the situation. Following the meeting, Barrett-Taylor left the facility, refused to answer if she was quitting, and never returned to work.
She then represented herself in suing her former employer for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and wrongful termination. She lost.
Then, on appeal, she lost again. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit succinctly explained: “If Concentra shouldn’t have modified the work restrictions to allow work in the dining hall, the liability would fall on Concentra—not Birch Care.” Id. at *3. Plainly stated, the employer is only obligated to provide the accommodations and limitations ordered by medical professionals, and no more.
Under the ADA, can employees insist on greater accommodations that order by doctors?
The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) is a federal law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities. One of the key provisions of the ADA is the requirement that employers provide reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities. The question of whether employees can demand greater accommodations than those recommended by their doctors has been the subject of numerous court cases.
In general, courts have held that employees are entitled to reasonable accommodations that are necessary to enable them to perform the essential functions of their jobs. However, employees are not entitled to demand accommodations that are unreasonable or that would impose an undue hardship on their employers.
The following cases provide examples of how courts have approached the issue of employee demands for greater accommodations than those recommended by their doctors.
In Gantt v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co., 143 F.3d 1042 (6th Cir. 1998), the employee was a sales representative who suffered from carpal tunnel syndrome. Her doctor recommended that she be allowed to take frequent breaks to stretch and that she be given ergonomic equipment to help reduce the strain on her hands and wrists. The employer provided these accommodations, but the employee demanded additional accommodations, including a reduced workload and the ability to work from home. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the employer had fulfilled its obligation to provide reasonable accommodations by providing the accommodations recommended by the employee’s doctor. The additional accommodations requested by the employee were not reasonable and would have imposed an undue hardship on the employer.
In Taylor v. Phoenixville School District, 184 F.3d 296 (3d Cir. 1999), the employee was a teacher who suffered from multiple sclerosis. Her doctor recommended that she be provided with an air-conditioned classroom and an aide to assist with lifting and carrying. The employer provided these accommodations, but the employee demanded additional accommodations, including a transfer to a different school with a shorter commute and more flexible hours. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit likewise held that the employer had fulfilled its obligation to provide reasonable accommodations by providing the accommodations recommended by the employee’s doctor. The additional accommodations requested by the employee were not reasonable and would have imposed an undue hardship on the employer.
In White v. York International Corp., 45 F.3d 357 (10th Cir. 1995), the employee was a manufacturing technician who suffered from a back injury. His doctor recommended that he be allowed to sit or stand as needed and that he be provided with a stool to use when standing. The employer provided these accommodations, but the employee demanded additional accommodations, including a reduced workload and the ability to take frequent breaks. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that the employer had fulfilled its obligation to provide reasonable accommodations by providing the accommodations recommended by the employee’s doctor. The additional accommodations requested by the employee were not reasonable and would have imposed an undue hardship on the employer.
In EEOC v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, 620 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2010), the employee was a dockworker who suffered from a back injury. His doctor recommended that he be allowed to use a back brace and that he be provided with assistance in lifting heavy packages. The employer provided these accommodations, but the employee demanded additional accommodations, including a transfer to a position that did not require lifting. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the employer had fulfilled its obligation to provide reasonable accommodations by providing the accommodations recommended by the employee’s doctor. The additional accommodations requested by the employee were not reasonable and would have imposed an undue hardship on the employer.
Have you noticed the pattern yet? These cases demonstrate that employees are entitled to reasonable accommodations that are necessary to enable them to perform the essential functions of their jobs. However, employees are not entitled to demand accommodations that are unreasonable or that would impose an undue hardship on their employers. In determining what accommodations are reasonable, courts typically rely on the recommendations of the employee’s doctor.
It is worth noting that the ADA does not require employers to provide the exact accommodation that an employee requests. Rather, the employer is required to engage in an interactive process with the employee to identify and implement reasonable accommodations. This process may involve considering alternative accommodations that would enable the employee to perform the essential functions of their job.
In conclusion, while employees are entitled to reasonable accommodations under the ADA, they are not entitled to demand accommodations that are unreasonable or that would impose an undue hardship on their employers. In determining what accommodations are reasonable, courts typically rely on the recommendations of the employee’s doctor. The interactive process between the employer and employee is crucial in identifying and implementing reasonable accommodations.
Best Law Firm ADA Workplace Accommodation Blogs on Point:
- ADA Accommodations: What Info Do I Need To Give My Job?
- Can I Refuse My Job Access To Medical Records During ADA Accommodation Process?
- Can I Pick The ADA Accommodation I Want?
- ADA: Anxiety And Depression Protected, May Not Excuse Workplace Misconduct
- ADA Accommodation Does Not Give Employees Ability To Violate Rules
- ADA Disability Accommodation Law: Help Me, Help You
What should I do if my manager will not give me a disability accommodation?
To obtain legal guidance regarding your particular disability discrimination or ADA accommodation request, it is recommended to contact a trained employee’s rights attorney to schedule a private consultation, free of cost. If you require guidance in employment law matters, it is crucial to have skilled attorneys who can assist you. Our law firm, Spitz – The Employee’s Law Firm, has a team of experienced attorneys who are committed to safeguarding employees’ rights and resolving disputes related to employment. If you are seeking help, you can reach out to our lawyers in Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, and Kentucky. We also offer the Spitz No Fee Guarantee. (Read: What is the Spitz No Fee Guarantee?; Why Having Skilled Employment Attorneys Is Critical; Employment Law: Avoid Hiring The Wrong Attorney).
Disclaimer:
Please note that this employment law website serves as an advertisement. The ADA and disability workplace accommodation information provided on this blog and employment discrimination website is solely for informational purposes and should not be considered as legal advice. To ascertain your legal rights, we recommend seeking advice from our top attorneys who can provide guidance on any particular employment law issue or problem. Please be aware that using and accessing this employment law website or any links contained within it does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The legal opinions expressed on this site are solely those of the individual lawyer and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Spitz Law Firm, Brian Spitz, or any individual attorney.