The Fifth Circuit recently ruled in favor of an employee who requested an accommodation that was not necessary to perform essential job functions. In Stokes v. Nielsen, the Court heard an appeal from a grant of summary judgment for an employer in a vision-impaired employee’s action under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Stokes v. Nielsen, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 28204, at *10 (5th Cir. Oct. 4, 2018).

The employee, Jacqueline Stokes, was employed at the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) for eighteen years with the primary responsibility of arranging employee travel. DHS provided multiple accommodations for Stokes’ visual impairment, including providing a workstation with natural lighting, special lightbulbs, multiple monitors, magnifying software, and magnifying equipment. In 2014, Stokes requested in writing that any materials passed out or displayed at on-site meetings would either be distributed to her in large font or in advance so that she could review them using her workstation magnification equipment.

The Court reiterated that it has explicitly rejected the requirement that requested modifications must be necessary to perform essential job functions to constitute a reasonable accommodation. Specifically, the Court noted that the ADA’s implementing regulations defined reasonable accommodations as, amongst other things: “Modifications or adjustments that enable a covered entity’s employee with a disability to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment as are enjoyed by its other similarly situated employees without disabilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1).” Moreover, modifications satisfy the “reasonable accommodation” requirement if it is “effective” at achieving this purpose. The Fifth Circuit also rejected the trial court’s citation of Brumfield v. City of Chicago, a Seventh Circuit decision holding that an employer need not accommodate a disability that is irrelevant to an employee’s ability to perform the essential functions of her job. Brumfield v. City of Chicago, 735 F.3d 619, 632 (7th Cir. 2013). Applying the correct standard, the Court found that a reasonable jury could find that the requested meeting materials were a reasonable accommodation, and stated the following:

DHS contends that Stokes can effectively participate in meetings by listening and requesting copies of the materials after, as she does for off-site meetings for which she has not requested this accommodation. Stokes replies that her willingness to get by with these inferior alternatives off-site, when it would be more difficult for DHS to provide the requested materials, does not mean that they effectively accommodate her. DHS’s additional argument that the other accommodations it has provided render the requested materials unnecessary is even less persuasive. As Stokes notes, she cannot use a handheld magnifying glass to better see a PowerPoint presentation at a group meeting, and her workstation magnification equipment can only help her view meeting materials if she has them in advance, as she has requested.

DHS alternatively contended that it was not liable because its failure to provide the requested meeting materials was a result of Stokes’ failure to engage in the interactive process. The Court rejected this argument, finding that a reasonable jury could conclude that a breakdown of the interactive process was not caused by Stokes. Specifically, Stokes offered evidence that she repeatedly requested the specific accommodation, was assured it would be provided, and then did not receive it on multiple occasions. As a result, a reasonable jury could conclude that any breakdown of the interactive process required by the ADA was not caused by Stokes.

Accordingly, employers in the Fifth Circuit should keep in mind that the requirement to provide reasonable accommodations may go beyond merely providing accommodations necessary to perform essential job functions. If you have any questions about the implications of Stokes v. Nielsen, the ADA, or reasonable accommodations, contact counsel for your employer.

 

Prepared by the offices of Richard Abernathy, this article should not be construed as legal advice related to any specific facts or circumstances. Although this article covers legal subjects, it is intended to educate readers and not to provide advice that will be the basis for action or inaction in any specific circumstance. Viewing these materials does not create an attorney-client relationship between Abernathy, Roeder, Boyd & Hullett, P.C. and the reader or the reader’s institution. For circumstance-specific legal advice, please directly contact a licensed attorney.