A recent ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Yanick v. Kroger Co. of Michigan has broadened the obligations of employers in handling accommodation requests from employees with disabilities.
The case involves Mary Ellen Yanick, who managed a supermarket bakery for over fifteen years. In early 2018, she was diagnosed with breast cancer, which made it challenging for her to perform her job. After taking a four-month medical leave that included surgery, Yanick returned to her managerial position without restrictions. Soon after, she informed her supervisor that she was struggling with some job functions and needed time to recover. In response, her supervisor suggested that if she couldn’t manage her duties, she could step down to a lower position. Consequently, Yanick transferred to a different department and later moved to another store, taking a job with fewer responsibilities and lower pay. This led her to file a lawsuit against Kroger for failure to accommodate, disability discrimination, and retaliation.
Yanick alleged that Kroger discriminated against her based on her disability (breast cancer), claiming that the negative treatment she received was due to her medical condition. She also asserted that Kroger retaliated against her for exercising her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The failure to accommodate claim was particularly contentious. According to the ADA, employers are required to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities unless it would impose an undue hardship.
While the court noted that there is no clear-cut rule for determining when an employee has requested an accommodation, it concluded that Yanick met this burden. The court stated, “when they evaluate a failure to accommodate claim, they conduct a general assessment to determine if the employee communicated a need for an adjustment at work because of a disability.” It emphasized that an employee does not need to use specific terms like “accommodation” or “disability” when making their request. Additionally, the court highlighted that an employer must draw a reasonable inference from what an employee expresses in context. Notably, an employee is not obligated to directly connect their requests to medical restrictions to succeed in a failure to accommodate claim. Yanick used phrases such as “[she] needed some time to get back to normal” and that she “was struggling.” The court ruled that, in light of Yanick’s recent breast cancer diagnosis and her language, a jury could reasonably interpret her comments as a request for a reduced work schedule, which constitutes a reasonable accommodation. However, the court did not find sufficient evidence to support her discrimination or retaliation claims.
This case illustrates that seemingly innocuous situations can escalate into significant legal challenges if not carefully considered. Here are several key takeaways for employers:
1. Pay Attention to Inferences: Employers should be attentive to reasonable inferences regarding employee difficulties at work, even if the requests are not immediately clear.
2. Document Performance Issues: Consistent documentation of an employee’s performance and the reasons for any struggles is essential.
3. Encourage Clear Communication: Clear communication between employees and employers is crucial, especially regarding medical concerns. The ADA mandates an “interactive process” when such issues arise, and both parties should engage in this process to prevent future problems.
4. Training for Management: Ongoing training for managers and HR staff on recognizing and preventing discriminatory practices related to potential ADA claims is vital.
Our DC employment lawyers see this ruling may set a precedent for future ADA-related cases, establishing a higher standard for what constitutes a reasonable accommodation request. As a result, employers may need to revisit their policies and procedures to ensure compliance with this evolving legal landscape.