An Employer Is Not Required To Keep A Job Position That Is No Longer Necessary In Order To Accomodate A Disability
GRATZL v. OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUDGES (April 7, 2010)
Jeanne Gratzl has suffered from incontinence for several years. It has interfered with her ability to perform certain jobs and undertake normal commutes. All seemed well when she was hired by DuPage County for a “control room” court reporting position. Unlike most court reporting positions that require attendance at trials and in courtrooms, her position allowed her to manage her condition well. In fact, she managed it so well that her colleagues and superiors were not aware of it. In 2006, all that changed. The Chief Judge of DuPage County redefined the position of a court reporter – and required all court reporters to do the same job. That meant that all court reporters had to rotate through the control room and the courtrooms. Gratzl disclosed her condition to the Chief Judge. The parties engaged in a series of conversations attempting to reach an accommodation. The only accommodation Gratzl would accept was a full-time assignment to the control room. The Chief Judge offered several accommodations; including no trial assignments, assignments to courtrooms nearest the restrooms, and allowing her to use a hand signal to indicate to a presiding judge that she needed a break. When she rejected these accommodations, the County terminated her employment. Gratzl brought suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. The district court granted summary judgment to the County on the ground that Gratzl was not disabled. Gratzl appeals.
In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Manion, and Williams affirmed. The Court noted the similar requirements of both the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. A plaintiff must show that she is a qualified individual, with a disability, of which the defendant is aware, and for which the defendant failed to reasonably accommodate. Although the Court briefly addressed whether Gratzl had a disability, which was the basis of the district court's ruling, it ultimately decided it did not have to resolve that issue. Instead, it addressed whether Gratzl was a "qualified individual," meaning whether she was able to perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodations. The Court focused on the employer's legitimate description of the functions of the job. Here, that included rotating through the control room and the courtrooms. The fact that Gratzl was able to perform the functions of her prior job was not the issue. The County eliminated that job for legitimate reasons. It is not required to maintain a job, for which an employee is qualified, that it no longer believes is necessary or appropriate. Since Gratzl basically concedes that she cannot perform the job as it is now defined, she is not a “qualified individual.” As an alternative ground, the Court concluded that the accommodations offered by the County were reasonable under the ADA. Her only real objection to the accommodations was that the disruption to the courtrooms necessitated by her frequent breaks would be an embarrassment to her. She is not entitled to reject a reasonable accommodation for that reason.
Gerald Lloyd is a truck driver. Unfortunately, Lloyd lost much of his left leg in a motorcycle accident. Fortunately, he adapted fairly well to a prosthetic leg. He does experience some difficulties with the lining and develops occasional infections. He was able to get a limb waiver from the State of Indiana to return to his career as a truck driver. Swifty Transportation (“Swifty”) hired Lloyd as a night-shift driver in June 2008. Swifty delivers gasoline in its fleet of twelve trucks. Each truck has one lead driver on the day shift and two night-shift drivers. The lead drivers are generally paid more and have some additional responsibilities. In 2001, Swifty filled a lead-driver position without interviewing Lloyd, even though Lloyd had expressed his interest in the job. Lloyd filed an EEOC charge, alleging that Swifty denied him the job because of his disability. Swifty and Lloyd resolved the charge. Lloyd agreed not to bring suit. Swifty agreed to notify and interview Lloyd for any open lead-driver position. On three later occasions, Swifty filled open lead-driver positions with other applicants. In June 2003, they interviewed Lloyd but hired a more experienced driver. Lloyd filed a second EEOC complaint. In January 2004, Swifty again filed a lead driver position with a more experienced driver, this time without interviewing Lloyd. Lloyd was disciplined for the first time in January 2005 – for loading gasoline from the wrong supplier. Lloyd filed his third EEOC complaint. Subsequent to his last EEOC complaint, Lloyd was disciplined twice more. In May 2005, Lloyd resigned. He filed a complaint, alleging that Swifty a) failed to promote him, disciplined him, and paid him less than others, all on account of his disability and in retaliation for his EEOC charges and taking FMLA leave, b) created a hostile work environment, and c) breached the settlement agreement by not interviewing him for every job opening. The court granted summary judgment to Swifty.