CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19) RESOURCE CENTER Read More
Add To Favorites

Employment - ADA - Accommodation - Interactive process

Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly - 4/14/2017

Where a defendant employer was awarded summary judgment on a plaintiff employee’s claim of failing to accommodate her disability in violation of the American with Disabilities Act, the judgment must be affirmed because even if the judge erred in concluding that the plaintiff was not a disabled person, the plaintiff was in fact responsible for the breakdown of the interactive process.

“… The interactive process, which varies depending on the circumstances of each case nevertheless requires both the employer and employee to engage in a meaningful dialogue, in good faith, for the purpose of discussing alternative reasonable accommodations. …

“(Plaintiff Gloria M.] Ortiz-Martínez argues on appeal that (defendant] Fresenius's request for additional information was excessive and unrelated to her work requirements as a social worker. She also argues that she was not responsible for the breakdown in communication because she ‘manifested her desire to be reinstated after her disability-related leave of absence,’ Fresenius never offered her any sort of reasonable accommodation, and Fresenius never provided evidence that the letters it sent to the (State Insurance Fund (SIF)] were actually sent. We disagree.

“The burden is on Ortiz-Martínez to demonstrate in the first instance what specific accommodations she needed and how those accommodations were connected to her ability to work. … Notwithstanding this burden, here the record is rife with uncontested facts demonstrating that Fresenius continually attempted to engage in the interactive process in good faith, while Ortiz-Martínez refused to meaningfully engage after submitting an initial letter from her doctors on July 18, 2013 and attending a meeting on August 6, 2013.

“First, Fresenius's request for more specific information was reasonable and important to determine the type of accommodations Ortiz-Martínez required. How much weight Ortiz-Martínez could support with her hands, the kind of movements that she was to avoid due to her injury, and how long or frequently she needed breaks throughout the day were directly relevant to the accommodations she would need and her duties of daily desk and personal computer work, while performing and documenting patient assessments, care planning, and counseling. ‘An accommodation request must be sufficiently direct and specific, and it must explain how the accommodation is linked to plaintiff's disability.’ … Fresenius's attempts to further clarify Ortiz-Martínez's requests and to seek specific information regarding her accommodation needs were not unreasonable, especially in light of her burden to explain how her specific accommodation requests were related to her disability and duties at work.

“Ortiz-Martínez's remaining complaints are also without merit. The mere fact that she expressed a desire to be reinstated does not demonstrate that she meaningfully engaged with the interactive process in good faith. A declaration of a desire to return did not assist Fresenius in probing the contours of her physical limitations in order to fashion an appropriate accommodation and Fresenius's failure to offer her any type of accommodation due to a lack of sufficient information cannot be the basis of liability — Fresenius committed no error in attempting to clarify her needs so that it could properly accommodate her. We therefore conclude that Ortiz-Martínez's failure ‘to make reasonable efforts to help (Fresenius] determine what specific accommodations are necessary’ caused the breakdown in the interactive process. ... Consequently, her failure to cooperate in Fresenius's attempts to identify the proper accommodations precludes a finding that the company is liable for the failure to accommodate. …”

Ortiz-Martínez v. Fresenius Health Partners, PR, LLC, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 01-085-17) (15 pages) (Thompson, J.) Appealed from the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico (Docket No. 16-1453) (April 7, 2017).

Click here for the full-text opinion.

 

Copyright © 2017 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.

Nationwide News