A federal appeals court in Tennessee recently upheld an order dismissing a former teacher’s disability bias lawsuit, finding that the teacher’s failure to engage in discussions with his employer over alternative accommodations doomed his claim. The teacher claimed that the school board had unlawfully refused to let him continue working from home after the school district returned to in-person teaching following the COVID-19 pandemic. The district court rejected this claim, and the appeals court agreed.
Dr. Harold Smith, a public school teacher in western Tennessee, requested that he be allowed to telework while recovering from organ transplant surgery. Smith provided medical information indicating that he was immunocompromised and requested to be allowed to continue working from home as an accommodation. In response, the school district proposed several on-premises work locations where the teacher could be isolated from contact with other employees and students. Alternatively, the school district suggested that Smith apply for extended sick leave. The teacher objected to these proposals and subsequently resigned after he was suspended for not returning to the worksite.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals panel unanimously held that the lower court had properly granted summary judgment to his employer, the Shelby County Board of Education, noting that the lower court properly decided that Smith had caused a breakdown in communication. The court further noted that “Smith chose silence over working with the SCBE to find a meaningful solution that would reconcile his health-related limitations with the SCBE’s in-person or on-site requirements,” and stated that “Considering that the SCBE readily met with Smith and crafted possible accommodations that took into account the health risk at the heart of Smith’s request, the SCBE cannot now be held responsible for Smith’s withdrawal from the process.”
The court concluded that by stopping communications with the school and insisting on working from home, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the alternative accommodations were not effective, and thus failed to meet his obligation to engage in the interactive process envisioned under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Notably, the medical information provided to the school district recommended that the plaintiff work in an isolated area but did not state that he needed to remain in his home. The court’s opinion is a good illustration of the principle that, while qualified employees are entitled to a reasonable accommodation under the ADA, they are not necessarily entitled to their preferred or most favored accommodation.
Employers who receive ADA accommodation requests should engage the employee who makes the request in a mutual exchange about the individual’s medical condition and how the condition can be accommodated to allow the employee to perform the essential functions of his or her job. As always, documentation is essential to showing that the employer followed the process. Employers should maintain a record of the information provided and the accommodations asked for and offered, as well as the conclusions reached about the effectiveness and reasonableness of the accommodations under consideration.
Harold Smith v. Shelby Cnty. Bd. of Educ., No. 23-5815 (6th Cir. 2024)
