Recently, the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination awarded $100,000 in emotional distress damages in addition to an award of back pay to a Complainant who resigned from her job after she alleged no one would accommodate her disability (coronary artery disease). In MCAD et al. v. Codman & Shurtleff, Inc., an MCAD hearing officer concluded that the company had sufficient notice of a need for accommodation and, then, despite that notice, failed to engage in the interactive process. Because of that failure, the Hearing Officer determined that Complainant was justified in quitting her job.
In this case, Complainant claimed she had made several requests for a reduction in her workload both to Human Resources and her supervisor. On one occasion, she told the Human Resources Manager that if her workload was not reduced, she would “suffer a heart attack and die.” When her workload was not reduced, she requested a leave of absence for cardiovascular distress, which was granted. Complainant took a total of three leaves of absence for this condition. Following her leaves, Complainant continued to request that she have a lighter workload and, ultimately, when that did not happen, she quit.
Thereafter, Complainant sued for disability discrimination, asserting that her former company had failed to engage in the interactive process with her and, thus, compelled her resignation. In its defense, the company claimed that it had no notice of her disability and, because of that, the duty to engage in the interactive process was never triggered. The company also asserted that it had nevertheless accommodated Complainant by providing her with three leaves of absence.
The Hearing Officer disagreed with the company’s position and, instead, found that Complainant’s statement to Human Resources and subsequent leaves of absence was sufficient to put the company on notice of a need for accommodation. The Hearing Officer further found that after Complainant’s “numerous requests to revise her job duties and three medical leaves resulting in large part from the stress of the job,” Complainant had no other avenue but to quit her job because Respondent refused to engage in a dialogue about the ways it might try to alleviate her burdensome workload.
Although the result in this case is frustrating because there is obviously no requirement that an employer change the nature of the job or remove essential job duties in order to accommodate someone with a disability, the case itself serves as a good example of how crucial it is to have an interactive dialogue with an employee in which different accommodations are discussed, regardless of whether or not the employee’s initial request for accommodation seems unreasonable. Indeed, perhaps in this case there was no accommodation that ultimately would have worked for this Complainant short of changing her job altogether; nevertheless, the act of engaging in the process itself is what might have saved this company from a large judgment.
This case also serves as a reminder to employers that an employee need not utter the words “I am disabled” in order to trigger any obligations on the company’s part. Because of that, it is important that supervisors, who are often the company’s first line of defense, are trained so they know how to spot those situations where an interactive dialogue is warranted.
Royal & Klimczuk attorneys routinely offer this and other types of supervisory training, so if you are interested in arranging for any trainings, please contact any of the attorneys at Royal & Klimczuk.