What is required of employers in the interactive process that they must engage in with employees seeking accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)? That was the question before the Sixth Circuit in Kleiber v. Honda of America.
WORKER IS INJURED
A Honda worker’s job required him to read inspection cards describing necessary repairs, determine the method for performing the repairs, use fine-motor skills in executing the repairs and drive cars across the shop floor.
After 10 years on the job, the employee suffered serious head injuries while off the job. About 13 months after the accident (and substantial hospitalization and therapy), the employee approached Honda about returning to work, submitted his doctor’s evaluation of his limitations and asked Honda to deal with his proxies.
EVALUATION, REVIEW AND DISCHARGE
Honda met with his proxies and asked the employee to be evaluated by its doctor. The doctor concluded that the employee was unable to:
- Work independently,
- Perform a job requiring balance,
- Perform a job requiring more than light gripping and simple slow hand movements, and
- Handle a job requiring multiple processes.
Based on this report and a thorough review of the shop floor, Honda’s placement committee determined that the employee’s limitations precluded him from performing his old job. So, consistent with its policy of releasing employees who have been unable to work for 12 consecutive months, Honda discharged him.
The employee sued, alleging that Honda had violated the ADA by failing to accommodate his disabilities. Finding that the facts were undisputed and that Honda was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the trial court threw out the case without a trial.
A FLAWED INTERACTIVE PROCESS
ADA rules require an employer to “initiate an informal, interactive process” with an employee to “identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” Accordingly, the “interactive process requires communication and good-faith exploration of possible accommodations.”
The employee argued that Honda had denied him a reasonable accommodation by failing to participate in good faith in the informal interactive process required to identify a suitable position. This led to the premature breakdown of the process before the parties identified a job he was qualified for. Specifically, the employee faulted Honda for not providing specific information regarding other jobs.
The Sixth Circuit found that, while the interactive process here was flawed, the employee offered no evidence that Honda was to blame for the shortcomings. The record contained no suggestion that he had tried to directly participate in the interactive process and was rebuffed. Instead, it showed that Honda had allowed him to use proxies and had participated in good faith.
EVIDENCE FAVORS EMPLOYER
In a deposition, one proxy stated that he had no reason to believe that Honda was not trying in good faith to accommodate the employee’s disability. And he described the Honda personnel he interacted with as being “professional” and “open to talking about things.”
Additionally, two Honda representatives visited the production line to identify appropriate jobs. They concluded that he could perform none of them because of his limited dexterity and inability to work on uneven surfaces.
These efforts undercut the employee’s claim that Honda had participated in bad faith. Further, the record contained no evidence that he or his proxies had asked for any information during the interactive process.
GOOD-FAITH EFFORTS
The Sixth Circuit, concluding that Honda’s failure to provide unrequested information about other positions wasn’t tantamount to bad faith, affirmed the trial court’s decision. Here, Honda clearly made a good-faith effort to accommodate the employee’s disability. The duty to accommodate doesn’t require employers to create new jobs or displace others from theirs.
SIDEBAR: SAME OUTCOME, DIFFERENT FACTS
In another case involving how far employers must go to accommodate employees’ disabilities, Novella v. Wal-Mart Stores, a deaf employee alleged that Wal-Mart’s failure to provide an interpreter at his termination interview violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The Eleventh Circuit first found that “discrimination” includes failure to reasonably accommodate otherwisequalified persons’ known disabilities. EEOC rules define “reasonable accommodation” to include modifications that enable employees “to perform the essential functions” of their jobs and modifications that enable them to “enjoy benefits and privileges of employment” that are equal to those of abled employees.
The employee argued that the ability to communicate effectively at his termination meeting was both an “essential function” of his job and one of the “privileges and benefits” of employment requiring a reasonable accommodation — specifically, an interpreter’s presence.
The Eleventh Circuit had never before addressed whether the ability to understand charges and defend oneself at a termination interview qualified as an employment benefit and privilege. But the court had previously held that an “accommodation” is “reasonable” and “therefore required under the ADA” only if it enables an employee to perform essential job functions. The court found that communication at a meeting whose purpose was to notify the employee of his termination wasn’t an “essential function” of his job, so no ADA accommodation was required.