No Coach Necessary for Potty-Mouth Employee

28 July 2014 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
As we have recently noted, and as many employers have probably bemoaned a time or two, sometimes it feels like the legal concept of “reasonable accommodation” has little to do with real-world notions of what is reasonable, particularly when courts are telling employees they might have to allow admitted employee theft as such an accommodation. However, a recent federal court decision suggests that a “reasonable” accommodation can still contain some practical balance, but it also serves to again underscore the importance of an employer’s obligation to engage in the interactive process.

The case involved a large supermarket chain and an employee with Down Syndrome (a genetic disorder causing intellectual disability) who worked as a bagger. In April 2005, the employee said “f*** you, you stupid blonde,” to another employee within earshot of customers and other employees. The supermarket then terminated him for using profanity in violation of the store’s disciplinary and anti-harassment policies. Prior to his termination and to help him perform his essential job duties, the supermarket provided an array of vocational tutoring early in his tenure with the store, which began in 1997. The market also provided individual training on daily tasks and instituted supervision policies that applied only to the employee. For example, his supervisor completed a daily performance evaluation form which either approved or disapproved of his performance and sent it to his parents per their request. A social service agency also sent a job coach to work with the employee. However, the employee sometimes had trouble complying with the store’s work rules. For example, he cursed at a manager on one occasion and another occasion cursed within earshot of a customer about a woman who complained that he ate her grapes as he was bagging them. He was also previously written up for theft of store merchandise, which was normally cause for discharge under store policy, but the store decided not to fire him and notified his parents instead. In response to the April 2005 cursing incident, the employee’s parents asked if the store could bring in a job coach, but the employee’s supervisor denied the request stating that a job coach was not necessary.

Following the employee’s termination, his parents filed a lawsuit on his behalf, claiming the store denied him a reasonable accommodation in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”). However, the trial court dismissed the suit and the appellate court upheld that dismissal. Emphasizing the importance of both the employer and employee engaging in the interactive process under the ADA, the appellate court stated that,

[o]nce an employee requests a reasonable accommodation, the employer must meet the employee half way and engage in a “flexible, interactive process” to identify the necessary accommodations . . . Both parties are responsible for determining what accommodations are needed.

However, in stating that an employer cannot be held liable where the employee fails to provide information sufficient to determine the necessary accommodation, the appellate court also stated that “[a] tentative request for an accommodation to address minor theft does not imply a request for an accommodation for inappropriate verbal outbursts that violate the employer’s anti-harassment policies.” It also noted that the employee’s mother did not suggest that a job coach would prevent future outbursts of profanity and that the parents had not requested a job coach after the employee’s prior cursing infractions. The court also noted that the employee’s mother did not make reasonable efforts to help the store decide what reasonable accommodations were necessary. After being told by the supervisor that a job coach was not necessary, the mother did not suggest alternative accommodations or express fear that her son would have additional, more serious, behavior problems. Although the case represents a win for employers and their need to protect the integrity of the customer service focus they wish to project, it bears reminding that the decision also emphasizes the importance of both employers and employees meeting half way and determining what accommodations are needed. In this new era where the “reasonable” part of “reasonable accommodation” seems open to much interpretation, employers are well-advised to be even more proactive, and go further, when engaging in the interactive process in determining whether a reasonable accommodation is available.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

A Review of Recent Whistleblower Developments
19 July 2019
Legal News: Whistleblower Developments
Cloud security inadequate for Cyber threats, are you surprised?
19 July 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
Blockchain: A Tool With a Future in Healthcare
18 July 2019
Health Care Law Today
Do You Know What IMMEX Stands For?
16 July 2019
Dashboard Insights
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
MAGI’s Clinical Research Conference
29 October 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ