Takeaway: The court concluded that it could not draw a bright line and determine when the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) required a commuting accommodation and when it did not.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) might require an employer to offer accommodations to an employee with vision problems to make it easier for the worker to commute safely to the workplace.
The employee lived in Racine, Wis., and worked in a call center for defendant Charter Communications in Milwaukee, a one-hour drive away. The employee’s shift started at noon and ended at 9 p.m., so his commute home required nighttime driving. In 2016, the employee was diagnosed with early cataracts obstructing the center of his vision that might require surgery. Although his cataracts were rated as mild, even mild cataracts at the center of a person’s vision can cause problems.
The employee’s optometrist recommended that, because cataracts can cause blurriness in low-light conditions, the employee should avoid driving at night. To reduce the hazard of driving after dark, the employee asked Charter to modify his work schedule in August 2016. He asked to start earlier and leave earlier.
Charter granted his request, allowing him to start at 10 a.m. and end at 7 p.m., but only for 30 days. Before the 30 days ended, the employee asked to extend his modified schedule for another 30 days while he tried to move closer to the workplace. Charter’s internal policy permitted work-schedule changes, but Charter summarily denied his request the same day.
When the employee appealed the decision, the company responded that assistance with his commute was “not required under the ADA.” Charter argued that it provided the previous 30-day schedule change out of kindness even though it had no legal obligation to do so.
When required to switch back to his old schedule, the employee tried other options for commuting. He tried public transportation, but no buses ran after 9:00 p.m. He tried carpooling with other employees, but Charter would not release to him the names of employees who lived near him for privacy reasons. He was able to get to work through a combination of public transportation and friends, but this was frequently unreliable. He ultimately decided not to move to Milwaukee because he could not afford it and left his employment with Charter in January 2017.
The employee filed a charge of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which sought to conciliate the charge with Charter. When those efforts failed, the EEOC filed suit against Charter, alleging that it violated the ADA by failing to accommodate the employee’s disability. The EEOC sought damages and injunctive relief.
Charter moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted. The EEOC appealed the ruling to the 7th Circuit. On appeal, the 7th Circuit considered several decisions by other federal circuit courts concerning requests for commuting accommodations by employees with disabilities.
Charter relied upon EEOC guidance to ask the 7th Circuit to find that the commute is always the employee’s responsibility and accommodations relating to an employee’s commute always exceed the ADA’s requirements. The 7th Circuit noted, however, that the ADA’s legislative history referenced several possible accommodations that could be relevant, such as providing access to a hard-to-reach worksite in a mall and offering no-cost schedule modifications.
The 7th Circuit further reasoned that, with regard to disability-related commuting difficulties, the employee usually controls some key variables, such as where the employee lives, while the employer controls another key variable, the work schedule.
The court ruled that the employee’s situation of being denied a continuation of his schedule modification for another 30 days presented genuine issues of material fact concerning whether Charter failed to accommodate him under the ADA. The 7th Circuit thus reversed the decision of the district court and ordered the case to proceed to trial.
EEOC v. Charter Communications LLC, 7th Cir., No. 22-1231 (July 28, 2023).
Jeffrey Rhodes is an attorney with McInroy, Rigby & Rhodes LLP in Arlington, Va.
