A recent federal appeals court decision shows how risky it is to ignore the interactive accommodations process spelled out in the ADA. In Talley v. Family Dollar Stores of Ohio (6th Cir., Sept. 11, 2008), the court held that the breakdown of the interactive process can, in and of itself, constitute a constructive discharge of an employee.
In other words, an employee who quits in frustration can argue that she was essentially forced to quit.
Falling down, sitting down
Pearlie Talley began working as a cashier at Family Dollar Stores in January 1996. During nine years of employment, she took several medical leaves. Some were related to a degenerative spine condition that often rendered her unable to stand or sit for long periods of time. Others related to different medical ailments—a torn knee ligament and heart bypass surgery.
On March 24, 2004, Talley slipped on a waxed floor at work, aggravating her spine injury.
Then she claimed one of her supervisors forbade her from using a stool at her cashier station following the slip and fall. ’s explanation: Other employees complained that Talley was receiving favorable treatment.
Within a couple of months, Talley determined that she could not perform her job without being able to sit down while working her cash register. She took a medical leave of absence.
In July 2004, Talley informed another supervisor that she had received medical clearance and was free to return to work effective Aug. 4. According to Talley, that supervisor insisted that Talley provide a work release containing no restrictions on how she could work.
The doctor’s note that she provided, however, required that she use a stool. Her supervisor asked her to sign a letter stating that she understood that she would not be able to use a stool at work, and that she would be limited to three five-minute breaks during a six-hour shift.
Talley responded by submitting a different letter explaining that she could not sign because it would prohibit her from using a stool.
When Talley finally returned to work, she almost immediately complained of severe back pain and asked if she could use a stool. Her supervisor refused, and gave her two options: finish the shift without the stool or get another doctor’s note stating she needed the stool. She opted for the latter and provided the note the same day.
When the supervisor refused to open the note, Talley left the store and never returned. Family Dollar officially terminated her five months later for job abandonment.
The Court of Appeals found that, because Family Dollar Stores failed to engage Talley in the necessary interactive process to determine an appropriate reasonable accommodation for her disability, she suffered a constructive discharge and therefore could proceed with a disability discrimination lawsuit.
- How to Fire an Employee the Legal Way: 6 Termination Guidelines
- 10 Secrets to an Effective Performance Review
- DOL mounts vigorous defense against business groups' lawsuits
- Filing information returns? Avoid IRS penalties
- NLRB ruling spells end of union eligibility for millions
- 401(k) plans face year of rebuilding