Employers Must Take Initiative to Accommodate Obvious Disabilities
- By Your mom
- •
- 01 Jul, 2008
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that employers must provide reasonable
accommodation to employees with obvious disabilities, even when the employee fails to request
one. Brady v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 531 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2008). Wal-Mart hired the plaintiff
for a pharmacy assistant position. The employee held a similar job with a local pharmacy for
two years prior to joining Wal-Mart. Within days of his hire his manager complained about his
performance. Although plaintiff had cerebral palsy and was obviously disabled, his manager
never approached him to discuss any reasonable accommodations he may have required to
perform the essential functions of his job. Instead, he was transferred to a job collecting
shopping carts and garbage in the parking lot. Shortly thereafter he quit and filed suit under the
ADA.
A jury found in his favor and awarded him $7.5 million. On appeal the Second Circuit,
which covers Connecticut, affirmed the jury’s decision. In doing so it found the employee was
actually disabled, and perceived to be disabled under the ADA. He was also qualified for the job
of pharmacy assistant and suffered an adverse employment action when he was transferred to a
less desirable job of collecting garbage in the parking lot, even though the pay and benefits
remained the same.
In addition to plaintiff’s discrimination claim, he also filed a failure to accommodate
claim. Employers are separately liable when they fail to make reasonable accommodation for
known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual, unless the employer
can show the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the organization. While
employees generally have an obligation to inform their employer of the need for an
accommodation, the court held that where an employer knows or reasonably should have known
that an employee has a disability that makes it difficult for him to perform his job, the employer
must initiate an “interactive” accommodation discussion when the employee fails to do so on his
own. When an employer fails to proactively investigate the need for accommodation under such
circumstances it violates the ADA.
Employers should become familiar with what constitutes a covered disability under the
ADA, and how to comply with reasonable accommodation obligations under the law in order to
avoid costly outcomes that even sophisticated employers like Wal-Mart have suffered.
accommodation to employees with obvious disabilities, even when the employee fails to request
one. Brady v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 531 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2008). Wal-Mart hired the plaintiff
for a pharmacy assistant position. The employee held a similar job with a local pharmacy for
two years prior to joining Wal-Mart. Within days of his hire his manager complained about his
performance. Although plaintiff had cerebral palsy and was obviously disabled, his manager
never approached him to discuss any reasonable accommodations he may have required to
perform the essential functions of his job. Instead, he was transferred to a job collecting
shopping carts and garbage in the parking lot. Shortly thereafter he quit and filed suit under the
ADA.
A jury found in his favor and awarded him $7.5 million. On appeal the Second Circuit,
which covers Connecticut, affirmed the jury’s decision. In doing so it found the employee was
actually disabled, and perceived to be disabled under the ADA. He was also qualified for the job
of pharmacy assistant and suffered an adverse employment action when he was transferred to a
less desirable job of collecting garbage in the parking lot, even though the pay and benefits
remained the same.
In addition to plaintiff’s discrimination claim, he also filed a failure to accommodate
claim. Employers are separately liable when they fail to make reasonable accommodation for
known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual, unless the employer
can show the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the organization. While
employees generally have an obligation to inform their employer of the need for an
accommodation, the court held that where an employer knows or reasonably should have known
that an employee has a disability that makes it difficult for him to perform his job, the employer
must initiate an “interactive” accommodation discussion when the employee fails to do so on his
own. When an employer fails to proactively investigate the need for accommodation under such
circumstances it violates the ADA.
Employers should become familiar with what constitutes a covered disability under the
ADA, and how to comply with reasonable accommodation obligations under the law in order to
avoid costly outcomes that even sophisticated employers like Wal-Mart have suffered.
