Issue
In Allen v. Pacific Bell, (2003 WL 22533482), the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, addressed the issue of whether an employer failed to make reasonable accommodations for an employee’s disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Facts
When Clarence Allen sought to return to his position as a services technician, his employer, Pacific Bell, asked him to submit medical documentation that his condition had improved. Mr. Allen claimed that the only accommodation he needed to return to his previous position was a special assignment that did not require climbing poles and ladders. However, a previous medical report from a doctor affiliated with Pacific Bell concluded that Mr. Allen was “capable of sedentary work, mainly sitting, with minimal walking.” Mr. Allen’s own doctor had concluded that he is only capable of working at a desk job. Mr. Allen failed to submit medical documentation that his condition had improved so that he could return to work as a services technician. Mr. Allen made several requests for reinstatement to his previous position during Pacific Bell’s search for an appropriate job based on the doctors’ determination that he was only qualified for a sedentary desk job. Pacific Bell utilized its transfer system designed to provide disabled employees with “super-seniority” and multiple options to select an alternative job, which guaranteed a disabled employee the right to transfer back to his or her previous job if their medical condition permitted such a transfer. However, when Pacific Bell requested that Mr. Allen take a test needed to determine his qualifications for a different position, he failed to show up for the test.
After his employment was terminated, Mr. Allen brought a lawsuit in federal district court claiming that Pacific Bell discriminated against him because of his disability in violation of California law and the ADA. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Pacific Bell and Mr. Allen appealed.
Appellate Court Decision
The Court of Appeals found that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Pacific Bell. The Court determined that Pacific Bell did not fail to make reasonable accommodations. Pacific Bell’s determination that Mr. Allen was qualified only for desk work was appropriate because Mr. Allen failed to submit medical evidence to modify his doctor’s report that he was “unfit to do any other type of work except a desk job.” Pacific Bell did not have a duty to “engage in further interactive processes” to return Mr. Allen to his previous position where he failed to provide medical evidence that his physical condition no longer restricted his ability to perform his previous position.
The Court noted that, after Pacific Bell had determined that Mr. Allen was not qualified to return to his previous position with reasonable accommodations, it had a duty to “engage in an interactive process to consider whether an alternative accommodation within the company would be possible.” However, Mr. Allen failed to cooperate with Pacific Bell’s attempt to place him in another position. The Court concluded Mr. Allen lost his right to additional accommodations when he failed to appear to take the required tests needed to determine his qualifications for other positions.
Legal Alert Email Disclaimer
Legal Alerts are published by Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard as a timely reporting service to alert clients and other friends of recent changes in case law, opinions or codes. This alert does not represent the legal opinion of the firm or any member of the firm on the issues described, and the information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice. Should further analysis or explanation of the subject matter be required, please contact the attorney with whom you normally consult.