Employees who exhaust their leave under the Family Medical Leave Act will sometimes require additional leave due to a medical condition.
While the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and some courts, have held that the Americans with Disabilities Act requires that employers grant continuous leave as a reasonable accommodation, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana) recently held that a continuous leave of absence is not a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.
In the case Severson vs. Heartland Woodcraft, the employee took leave under the Family Medical Leave Act for a medical condition, which all parties agreed also constituted a disability under the ADA.
The appeals court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the case, holding, “The ADA is an anti-discrimination statute, not a medical-leave entitlement.”
It held that the ADA requires that employers provide reasonable accommodation to an individual that will enable that employee to work. “An employee who needs long-term medial leave cannot work and thus is not a ‘qualified individual’ under the ADA,” the court wrote.
The appeals court affirmed a decision from 2003 which held, “A multimonth leave of absence is beyond the scope of a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.”
The court also held that the employer was not required to offer a light-duty assignment to the employee which would have enabled the employee to return to work sooner. The court held that the employer did not offer light duty to other employees, so none was required here.
This case makes an already confusing law even more difficult for employers to know what the law requires.
In a bit of irony, the EEOC in Chicago announced a $2 million settlement against UPS to resolve what it described as a “nationwide disability discrimination lawsuit.”
The lawsuit related to what the EEOC said in a statement was an “inflexible leave policy, whereby the company fired disabled employees automatically when they reached 12 months of leave, without engaging in the interactive process required by law,” which could have provided additional leave under the ADA as a reasonable accommodation.
“Having a multiple-month leave policy alone does not guarantee compliance with the ADA. Such a policy must also include the flexibility to work with employees with disabilities who may simply require a reasonable accommodation [of additional leave] to return to work. UPS has now made changes which will allow more people to keep their jobs,” the EEOC’s Chicago district director said.
The EEOC believes that the ADA requires continuous leave as a reasonable accommodation, including where the employee may not be eligible for leave under the FMLA or the leave has expired. However, as noted by the 7th Circuit, the law may not require it, and it held the EEOC’s guidance on this issue was flawed.
A plain reading of the ADA supports the 7th Circuit’s legal analysis since the ADA was passed to provide reasonable accommodations so that an employee can perform the job. By not working, the employee is not performing the job.
However, employers should tread lightly here, and use caution before denying leave as a reasonable accommodation. The law is too unsettled to take this type of risk.
Employers should engage in the interactive process and provide the leave if it is reasonable and the leave can be accommodated.
However, the EEOC has consistently said that indefinite leave is not a reasonable accommodation, so employees with an uncertain return to work date are not entitled to leave under the ADA.