Takeaway: This decision underscores the fact that the employer retains ultimate discretion in choosing among reasonable accommodations. Providing additional unpaid leave for necessary treatment in some circumstances should not be overlooked when considering the many forms reasonable accommodations may take.
A delivery driver with a back ailment failed to show that his employer’s offer to retain his job and allow him to take an unpaid leave of absence until he was able to return to work wasn’t a reasonable accommodation for the circumstances, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held.
The plaintiff, a driver for a global shipping company, began experiencing pain in his lower back, hip and buttocks. At the time, he was assigned to a delivery route, for which he had bid under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), and which required him to drive a truck with a cargo capacity of 600 cubic feet.
When the driver was diagnosed with hip bursitis (a type of inflammation), his employer granted his request for a more supportive seat. He still was able to work only sporadically until the fall of 2018, when he was diagnosed with sacroiliitis (inflammation of joints in the lower back). His doctor cleared him to return to work on the condition that he avoid prolonged sitting until Nov. 1, 2018. The driver requested an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodation on Sept. 6, 2018, to drive a smaller vehicle with a cargo capacity of 300 to 400 cubic feet, which would have a softer suspension and provide him with an easier ride. Alternatively, he requested assignment to an inside job for which he was qualified until he could return to his route.
Employer officials met with the driver to discuss his request and ultimately determined they could not provide him with the smaller vehicle because such a van would have insufficient capacity to serve his route. Providing the employee with such a van would require either that he give a part of his route to another driver, displace someone from another route or require that he himself complete the route in multiple trips. All these options would violate the CBA under which he had bid for his route, according to the officials.
They also advised the employee that there were no openings for inside work at the time, but that he would be considered for any openings that might occur. The company allowed him to retain his job and take leave without pay until he could return to work. The employee returned to work after several months and continued to drive the route to which he was assigned.
After returning to work, the employee sued under the ADA, alleging that his employer’s refusal to provide him with the accommodation he requested violated the statute. The district court granted summary judgment for the employer, concluding that the employee had not shown the accommodations he requested were reasonable.
On appeal, the 4th Circuit noted that in making a claim under the ADA for a failure to accommodate, the employee has the burden of showing that:
- The worker was an individual who had a disability within the meaning of the statute.
- The employer had notice of the disability.
- With reasonable accommodation, the employee could perform the essential functions of the position.
- The employer refused to make such accommodations.
Further, in the context of a workplace governed by a CBA, “the employee must show either that the requested accommodation would not violate the agreement or that some ‘special circumstances’ exist that nonetheless make ‘the requested accommodation … reasonable on the particular facts,’ ” the 4th Circuit said.
The employer had explained that delivery routes were assigned to drivers based on seniority and their bids for the routes as provided by the CBA. In addition, the CBA restricted drivers to working no more than 9.5 hours per day. In light of these restrictions, using a 300- to 400-cubic foot van as requested by the employee would have resulted in assigning work to another driver or drivers that potentially would put them over 9.5 hours or requiring the employee to drive the route himself with a smaller truck on multiple trips, which would also require him to work more than 9.5 hours. The employee provided no solution to these problems arising from his request, the appeals court noted.
The 4th Circuit added that the employee had failed to show that the requested accommodation would have enabled him to perform the essential job functions, stating that to satisfy that burden, “he is not free simply to redefine the job.” The employee’s requested accommodation for a smaller truck failed to give appropriate consideration to the employer’s requirements for his job and didn’t demonstrate that he could, with his requested accommodation, perform the essential functions of the position that he held before his illnesses. Neither had he shown there was a vacancy that would allow him to do inside work, the court said. “In short, he has not carried his burden up demonstrating that the accommodations he requested were reasonable,” it said.
The employee also argued that providing him with unpaid medical leave was not a reasonable accommodation, but he provided no authority as to why that accommodation was unreasonable in these circumstances.
“While a period of unpaid leave might not always be a reasonable accommodation, such leave may be reasonable where the disability that interferes with an employee’s capacity to complete assigned tasks is temporary and there is reason to believe that a leave of absence will provide a period during which the employee will be able to recover and return to work,” the appeals court said, affirming summary judgment. “That [he] would have preferred to be accommodated in some other way does not support a claim of discrimination under the ADA.”
Hannah v. United Parcel Service Inc., 4th Cir., No. 21-1647 (July 10, 2023).
Rosemarie Lally, J.D., is a freelance legal writer based in Washington, D.C.
