Call The Right Attorney™
No Fee Guarantee

ADA: Employees Cannot Demand A Specific Accommodation

by | Sep 10, 2024 | Disability Discrimination, Employment Discrimination, Employment Law, Federal Law Update |

Navigating the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) can be daunting for both employees and employers. This is especially true when it comes to understanding what constitutes a reasonable accommodation for a disabled employee. In this disability discrimination blog, our employee’s rights lawyers will delve into the case of Howard v. City of Sedalia, Missouri, recently decided by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Samantha Howard, a pharmacist with Type I diabetes and hypoglycemic unawareness, requested to bring her diabetic-alert service dog to work. When her request was denied, she resigned and subsequently sued, claiming a violation of the ADA. The court’s decision highlights that employees cannot always get the exact accommodation they want under the ADA.

What protections does the ADA provide for employees with disabilities?

Title I of the ADA ensures that no covered employer can discriminate against a qualified individual based on disability regarding job application procedures, hiring, advancement, discharge, compensation, training, and other employment terms and conditions. Discrimination includes not making reasonable accommodations for known physical or mental limitations unless such accommodations would impose an undue hardship on the business.

Best ADA Attorney Blogs on Point:

Who is considered a qualified individual under the ADA?

A qualified individual is someone who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position they hold or desire.

What constitutes a reasonable accommodation?

According to the regulations set by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), reasonable accommodations include:

  1. Modifications or adjustments to enable a job applicant to be considered for a position.
  2. Changes to the work environment or how the job is typically performed to allow an individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of the job.
  3. Adjustments that allow an employee with a disability to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment as other similarly situated employees without disabilities.

Best Disability Discrimination Lawyer Blogs on Point:

Does an employer have to provide personal items as accommodations?

No, employers are not required to provide personal items, such as prosthetic limbs, wheelchairs, or eyeglasses, that an employee uses off the job. The obligation to accommodate applies to services and programs provided in connection with employment and non-work facilities like cafeterias, lounges, and gyms.

Does an employer have to give the specific ADA accommodation requested by the employee?

No, an employer is not required to provide the specific accommodation requested by the employee. The ADA requires employers to provide a reasonable accommodation that is effective in enabling the employee to perform the essential functions of the job, but it does not mandate that the accommodation must be the exact one requested by the employee.

Best Disability Accommodation for Work Law Firm Blogs on Point:

Is diabetes considered a disability under the ADA?

Most likely, diabetes should be considered a disability under the ADA. The ADA defines a disability as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. Diabetes, as a chronic condition that affects the endocrine system and can impact various major life activities, meets this definition. Individuals with diabetes should be entitled to reasonable accommodations in the workplace to help them manage their condition and perform their job duties effectively.

Best Wrongful Termination Lawyer Blogs on Point:

Case Study: Howard v. City of Sedalia, Missouri

Howard, a pharmacist, has Type I diabetes and hypoglycemic unawareness, which prevents her from knowing when her blood sugar drops to dangerous levels. After starting work at Bothwell Regional Medical Center, she informed her supervisor about her diabetes and received permission to keep food and drink at her desk.

In June 2020, Howard learned she could receive a diabetic-alert service dog, Corry. She requested to bring Corry to work for six months of training, excluding sterile areas like the clean room. Bothwell’s team denied the request, citing contamination risks but expressed willingness to find an alternative accommodation. When no agreement was reached, Howard resigned and later sued, claiming a violation of the ADA.

Howard’s primary argument was that her requested accommodation would enable her to perform her job’s essential functions. However, she had already been performing these functions satisfactorily without the dog. The court noted that she was indeed qualified to do her job with or without accommodation. As the court observed, “Howard did her job from March of ‘20 through August of ‘21 … [and] by her own admission, [received] good recommendations and got raises. There was no testimony that anything changed.”

As the case went to trial, Howard’s legal team shifted focus, arguing that the accommodation was necessary for her to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment. This strategy was influenced by a similar case, Hopman, where the ADA was interpreted to include such benefits. However, Howard failed to prove she was denied any specific employer-sponsored benefit or privilege.

In addressing the issue, the court pointed out, “Howard failed to identify any employer-sponsored benefit or program to which she lacked access.” Furthermore, the court emphasized, “Providing a service dog at work so that an employee with a disability has the same assistance the service dog provides away from work is not a cognizable benefit or privilege of employment.”

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled against Howard, emphasizing that while her request to bring a service dog to work was valid from a personal management perspective, it did not fall under the ADA’s requirements for reasonable accommodation. The accommodation she sought was deemed a personal item that the employer was not obligated to provide. Employees must differentiate between accommodations needed to perform essential job functions and those aimed at enjoying equal employment benefits and privileges. The latter must relate directly to employer-provided services or facilities.

The Howard case underscores the importance of understanding the scope and limitations of the ADA. While the ADA provides significant protections, it does not guarantee that employees will receive their preferred accommodations. Both employees and employers must work together to find reasonable solutions that comply with the law and ensure a safe, effective working environment.

What should I do if my job will not give me a disability accommodation?

If your job will not provide a disability accommodation, it’s important to take action to protect your rights. First, document your requests and any responses from your employer. Then, contact Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm. Brian Spitz and his team specialize in employee rights and have extensive experience handling ADA accommodation cases.

Spitz offers a free initial consultation, which means you can discuss your situation with an experienced attorney at no cost. Additionally, Spitz operates on a no-fee guarantee, ensuring that you won’t have to pay any attorney fees unless they win your case. This makes it easier for you to seek the legal help you need without worrying about upfront costs. They can provide expert guidance on your specific situation, help you understand your rights, and assist in pursuing the necessary legal actions to ensure you receive fair treatment. Don’t hesitate to reach out to Spitz for the support you need.

Best Employment Law Attorney Blogs on Point:

Disclaimer

The information provided in this blog is for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. While we strive to keep the information accurate and up-to-date, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. Viewing this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm. For personalized legal advice, we encourage you to contact us directly to discuss your specific circumstances. The free initial consultation and no-fee guarantee apply to employment law cases and may have specific conditions. Please contact our office for more details.