Long lunch break wasn't required ADA accommodation, 6th Cir. says

Dive Brief:

A receptionist failed to show that her employer violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when it did not immediately grant her time to exercise during the work day as a reasonable accommodation, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled (McDonald v. UAW-GM Center for Human Resources, No. 17-1875 (6th Cir., June 21, 2018)).
Shannan McDonald, who was born with a genetic disorder, asked for an extended lunch break to exercise. After her request was denied, she provided a doctor's note supporting her request but still did not link the need to a disability or explain why the exercise could not occur outside of work hours. Before receiving an answer, she began taking longer lunches. McDonald then quit during a short work suspension for insubordination while the second request was under consideration. McDonald sued and a trial court dismissed her claims.
On appeal, the 6th Circuit upheld the lower court's finding. McDonald's disability discrimination claim failed because she did not show that the requested accommodation was necessary; the doctor's letter was too vague, it said. The court also noted that the evidence showed that her work suspension stemmed from insubordination and not the lunch break request and that, with no underlying ADA violation upon which to base a constructive discharge claim, the claim failed.

Dive Insight:

The ADA requires employers to provide a reasonable accommodation for an employee's disability, unless the employer would suffer an undue hardship as a result. Once an employee has requested an accommodation, the employer has to engage in an informal, interactive process to identify accommodations. Both the employer and the employee must participate in the process in good faith. As courts have noted, failing to engage in this interactive process isn't a stand-alone violation under federal law, but it can be evidence of discrimination.

In this instance, McDonald argued that her employer failed to engage in the ADA's required interactive process. The appeals court disagreed. McDonald's supervisor responded to her emailed request and tried to identify reasonable accommodations that would allow McDonald to exercise longer, the court said. But McDonald rejected the supervisor's suggestion. The 6th Circuit said it has previously held that an employer need not even offer a counter accommodation to engage in the interactive process in good faith.

The appeals court also noted that it has held that an employee who quits before an accommodation request has been been resolved is at fault for any breakdown in the interactive process — not the employer. "So, if anyone is to blame for a breakdown in the interactive process, it is her, not CHR," the court said.

The interactive process can be relatively simple, but employers continue to stumble when it comes to implementation. It is such an important step for employers, David Fram, director of ADA & EEO services for the National Employment Law Institute, recently told HR Dive, and "it's totally in the employer's control to get right or mess up."