Employer must consider “job restructuring” if restructuring would accommodate disabled employee without undue hardship.
In a decision published on October 16, 2014, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that if a minor adjustment to the work duties of co-workers would have enabled a disabled employee to perform duties despite her disability, the employer’s refusal to consider making that adjustment was unlawful. Kaufmann v. Petersen Health Care VII, LLC, 7th Cir., 2014, No. 13-3661 (October 16, 2014).
This case highlights a few key points on ADA accommodations for Employers:
- Job restructuring is one accommodation that an employer must consider and may be held to be reasonable in certain circumstances.
- A policy against employing individuals with “permanent restrictions” does not excuse the employer from making an attempt to accommodate those restrictions.
- The employer must engage with the employee in the interactive process to determine the appropriate accommodation under the circumstances.
A brief summary of the case appears below:
Debra Kaufmann worked as one of two hairdressers at Mason Point nursing home. On Mondays and Tuesdays, Kaufmann would wheel residents one by one in their wheelchairs from their rooms to the nursing home’s beauty shop, do their hair, and wheel them back to their rooms. On her other work days, Kaufmann’s duties did not involve wheeling residents.
In December 2010, Kaufmann underwent surgery. When her doctor released her back to work, she was told she could not lift over 20 pounds (eventually increased to 50 pounds) and that she could not push wheelchairs. When Kaufmann informed her employer that she could no longer push wheelchairs, the nursing home’s administrator stated the facility did not allow employees to work with permanent restrictions. Kaufmann suggested that others could push the wheelchairs for her, or that she could work full time in the laundry room. Both suggestions were rejected without further discussion.
Based the refusal to accommodate her disability, Kaufmann quit her position and ultimately sued Manor Point under the ADA. The lower court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer, ruling that wheeling residents to and from beauty parlor appointments was an essential function of the hairdresser position. That ruling was based in part based on Mason Point’s claim that wheeling residents constituted about 60 to 65% of the plaintiff’s workday. Contradicting Kaufmann who claimed that the amount of time spent was closer to 6% of her time.
On appeal, the 7th Circuit conducted its own analysis of the amounts of time asserted to have been taken in the transporting of the residents to the beauty parlor. It also pointed out that the wheeling duties were reassigned without issue during the period between Kaufmann’s resignation and her replacement’s hire. Based on that analysis, the Court found that “what the best estimate of the plaintiff’s time spent wheeling can’t be determined on a motion for summary judgment. A trial is required.”
Further in relation to Mason Point’s policy of not employing individuals with “permanent restrictions” the Court stated “If a minor adjustment in the work duties of a couple of other employees would have enabled the plaintiff despite her disability to perform the essential duties of the job as a hairdresser, the nursing home’s refusal to consider making such an adjustment was unlawful.”
The Court went on to say “should a trial reveal that the only accommodation needed to enable the plaintiff to remain employed by the nursing home would have been a couple of hours of orderly time a week, Wall might have a very hard time proving that such an accommodation would be a “hardship” to the nursing home.”
Should you have any questions about employment law or any other law effecting your business or would like to schedule a free initial consultation, please contact Waltz, Palmer & Dawson, LLC at (847)253-8800 or contact us online.
Waltz, Palmer & Dawson, LLC is a full-service law firm with various areas of service to assist your business, including: Employment Law, Intellectual Property, Commercial Real Estate, Litigation and general Business Law services. Individual services include Estate Planning, Wills and Trusts, Probate, Guardianship, Divorce and Family Law.
This article constitutes attorney advertising. The material is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
_____