Strict Punctuality Policy May Violate ADA
- By Your mom
- •
- 01 Oct, 2007
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that strict enforcement of a punctuality
policy may violate the Americans with Disabilities Act, unless punctuality is an essential job
function. Holly v. Clairson Industries, LLC, 492 F.3d 1247 (11 th Cir. 2007). The plaintiff, a
paraplegic confined to a wheelchair, worked for defendant for some 17 years before being
terminated for tardiness. He claimed his lateness was disability related and that strict punctuality
was not an essential job function. He further argued that the employer’s failure to reasonably
accommodate his tardiness violated the ADA.
During the first 15 years of his employment the company regulated attendance using a
case by case approach. While Mr. Holly was periodically late he was permitted to make up any
missed time during breaks or after regular hours. His job as a mold maker allowed him to work
independently, and not as part of an integrated production line. His tardiness did not affect his
job performance.
The company then implemented a no fault attendance policy. Although Mr. Holly’s
tardiness grew no worse, he was terminated under the new policy for missing a total of one hour
and thirteen minutes over eighteen episodes. In twelve of the eighteen instances he was late by
one minute or less.
The court found that strict punctuality was a marginal, not essential, job function, and
that short delays caused by tardiness did not impair the operation, or add cost. As such, a
reasonable accommodation may include a flexible or modified work schedule where lost time
can be made up during the course of the day. The court also noted that plaintiff had been
allowed to make up time over a fifteen year period without any undue hardship on the company.
Separately, the court rejected the company’s argument that plaintiff was treated no
differently than other employees, and therefore suffered no discrimination. It reminded
employers that the ADA specifically requires employers to treat disabled employees differently
in some circumstances.
This case highlights the need to carefully review job descriptions and essential job
functions, and thoroughly think through requests for reasonable accommodation. Further,
employers may not rely on claims of equal treatment to justify the rejection of a reasonable
accommodation request.
policy may violate the Americans with Disabilities Act, unless punctuality is an essential job
function. Holly v. Clairson Industries, LLC, 492 F.3d 1247 (11 th Cir. 2007). The plaintiff, a
paraplegic confined to a wheelchair, worked for defendant for some 17 years before being
terminated for tardiness. He claimed his lateness was disability related and that strict punctuality
was not an essential job function. He further argued that the employer’s failure to reasonably
accommodate his tardiness violated the ADA.
During the first 15 years of his employment the company regulated attendance using a
case by case approach. While Mr. Holly was periodically late he was permitted to make up any
missed time during breaks or after regular hours. His job as a mold maker allowed him to work
independently, and not as part of an integrated production line. His tardiness did not affect his
job performance.
The company then implemented a no fault attendance policy. Although Mr. Holly’s
tardiness grew no worse, he was terminated under the new policy for missing a total of one hour
and thirteen minutes over eighteen episodes. In twelve of the eighteen instances he was late by
one minute or less.
The court found that strict punctuality was a marginal, not essential, job function, and
that short delays caused by tardiness did not impair the operation, or add cost. As such, a
reasonable accommodation may include a flexible or modified work schedule where lost time
can be made up during the course of the day. The court also noted that plaintiff had been
allowed to make up time over a fifteen year period without any undue hardship on the company.
Separately, the court rejected the company’s argument that plaintiff was treated no
differently than other employees, and therefore suffered no discrimination. It reminded
employers that the ADA specifically requires employers to treat disabled employees differently
in some circumstances.
This case highlights the need to carefully review job descriptions and essential job
functions, and thoroughly think through requests for reasonable accommodation. Further,
employers may not rely on claims of equal treatment to justify the rejection of a reasonable
accommodation request.
