?Takeaway: This ruling should give employers pause before implementing a no-fault points-based attendance policy.
?AutoZone stores may have violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when they maintained a no-fault points-based attendance policy, even though the policy had exceptions for disability-related absences. The stores issued occurrence points for employee tardiness and absences, and considered termination at the 12-point mark. This policy may have violated disabled employees’ right to the reasonable accommodation of time off from work, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought a federal lawsuit against Autozoners LLC, which operates AutoZone retail stores nationwide, on behalf of eight claimants who were employed at the stores between 2009 and 2011. The EEOC alleged that the claimants made requests to have disability-related absences excused or covered by accrued vacation time, and that Autozoners and its holding company, AutoZone Inc., violated the ADA by failing to make exceptions to their no-fault attendance policy.
AutoZone stores began using a formal point system to keep track of employees’ attendance and timeliness in 2009. The system was adopted in response to rising problems with employee absences and tardiness on the weekends. AutoZone stores sought to formalize the tracking of attendance so employees knew precisely what would be expected of them and how they would be held accountable regarding attendance. The company also notified employees that if they failed to call in or report to work for two consecutive days, it would be deemed job abandonment and they would be terminated.
The attendance policy was accompanied by a progressive-discipline system that corresponded with the number of points and was based on factors such as when the absence/tardy occurred—whether on a weekday or a weekend—and whether the employee provided proper or advance notice of the occurrence. Progressive discipline consisted of a verbal warning, a first written warning, a second written warning, a serious violation and, ultimately, termination. An employee who accumulated 12 points could be terminated.
Employees could receive four or five attendance warnings before they faced a termination decision. AutoZone stores had a policy to post attendance reports daily to ensure employees knew how many points they had accumulated. The attendance policy provided that no occurrence points would be given for any absences or tardiness that were 1) covered by AutoZone’s short-term disability leave, 2) approved as a leave of absence under the Family and Medical Leave Act, 3) related to emergency volunteer responsibilities, such as emergency medical technician, firefighter and police officer, or 4) covered by approved vacation, funeral leave, military obligations, jury duty, hospital confinement, work-related injuries or approved leaves of absence.
AutoZone stores also had an ADA policy and a problem-solving procedure that could be used to dispute occurrence points and contest discipline received, including termination. Before terminating an employee for attendance issues, an AutoZone regional human resources manager reviewed the employee’s file to consider any medical issues or notes, to discuss with the district or store manager the reasons why the employee received points, and to determine if there were any other circumstances that would weigh against termination, including whether other employees in the store had accrued 12 or more points and had not been terminated. Many employees had 12 or more points and had not been terminated.
Both the EEOC and the defendants filed motions for summary judgment with the district court. The court granted part of the defendants’ motion by dismissing AutoZone Inc. as a defendant and dismissing some portions of a claim brought on behalf of one former employee.
The court denied, however, most of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as it related to each employee, and particularly rejected Autozoners’ argument that the attendance policy corresponded with the essential job function of regular attendance. Rather, while the court noted that prolonged absences could justify termination, it found that the ADA may require weeks of time off to reasonably accommodate disabilities. The court could not conclude as a blanket rule that being absent the number of times necessary to accumulate 12 points would render an employee unable to perform essential job functions.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. AutoZone Inc., N.D. Ill., No. 14-cv-3385 (Sept. 30, 2022).
Jeffrey Rhodes is an attorney with McInroy, Rigby & Rhodes LLP in Arlington, Va.
