Employers Are Allowed to Choose Alternative Reasonable Accommodations if Effective

09 July 2018 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Authors: Philip B. Phillips

Employers generally understand their obligation to provide a reasonable accommodation to qualified individuals with disabilities as required under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as well as a number of state and local laws.

A recent federal court case reminds employers that they may choose among reasonable accommodations and that as long as the selected reasonable accommodation is effective, they are not required to provide the specific reasonable accommodation requested by the employee.

In Sessoms v. Trustees of the Univ. of Pennsylvania (June 20, 2018), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (covering Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) ruled in the University of Pennsylvania’s (Penn) favor, dismissing an employee’s failure to accommodate claim. The employee, who suffered from mental and physical disabilities and reported having difficulties with her supervisor, requested that Penn accommodate her by permitting her to begin working part-time (before eventually returning to full-time) following her return from medical leave and by transferring her to a new “lower-stress” department with a new supervisor.

In response, Penn proposed a part-time schedule, but at the same job with the same supervisor, which the employee declined. Her employment was terminated. She then filed a lawsuit claiming that Penn did not engage in a good-faith effort to reasonably accommodate her disabilities. The court found that Penn demonstrated good faith in its negotiations with the employee and had considered her accommodation requests. The court concluded that the employee did not show that other available positions existed and that her unwillingness to consider an accommodation that included working for the same supervisor was unreasonable.

Even before this recent case, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has acknowledged that an employer is not required to provide the specific reasonable accommodation requested and can consider alternative reasonable accommodations, stating in part that:

If there are two possible reasonable accommodations, and one costs more or is more burdensome than the other, the employer may choose the less expensive or burdensome accommodation as long as it is effective (i.e., it would remove a workplace barrier, thereby providing the individual with an equal opportunity to apply for a position, to perform the essential functions of a position, or to gain equal access to a benefit or privilege of employment). Similarly, when there are two or more effective accommodations, the employer may choose the one that is easier to provide.

As part of the good-faith interactive process under the ADA, employers should consider the employee’s requested accommodation, but can also propose and discuss other effective alternative reasonable accommodations and should explain the reasons they are being considered. Before rejecting an employee’s requested accommodation, employers should also be confident that a selected alternative is indeed effective in providing a reasonable accommodation.

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