By Reba Weiss and Harrison Owen
In Lane v. Clark County, a U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed a Nevada District Court’s dismissal of a former juvenile detention center cook’s claim that he had been discriminated against in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. In his complaint, the cook claimed that he had been terminated due to his anxiety in violation of the ADA. The district court found that the anxiety prevented him from performing the essential functions of his job, and the Court of Appeals agreed. Therefore, his claim for violation of the ADA was dismissed.
Randel Lane was hired by Clark County as a cook assigned to the Spring Mountain Youth Camp in October 2003. In 2004, Lane sought medical attention for a panic attack, and was diagnosed with severe anxiety, social anxiety disorder, major depression, and panic attacks. In August 2005, he took a position as a senior storekeeper at the Clark County Department of Juvenile Justice Services (JSS) warehouse. Because of his diagnosis, Lane was permitted to take FMLA leave from September 8, 2008 to December 8, 2008. Lane’s physician stated that he could not return to work before May 21, 2009.
Lane notified the County that he was not able to work at the JSS warehouse and that his doctor had suggested work at a different location with the same salary. The County told Lane that there was no alternative work location and that he had to return to work by May 13, or face progressive discipline for unauthorized leave. On May 13, Lane sought treatment for a panic attack, and could not return to work for one to three weeks. The County informed Lane that he would exhaust his FMLA leave on July 1, 2009, and he would be placed on unauthorized leave without pay starting on July 2.
Eventually, after the County was told that Lane would not be able to return to work in the near future, the County notified Lane that he was a candidate for medical separation because he was not a qualified individual with a disability, as he could not perform the essential job functions of his position. Lane was medically separated on October 5, 2009.
While Lane was on FMLA leave, the County notified him of a vacant position in another department in response to his request to voluntary transfer. Lane did not take this opportunity, and did not supply information required for the County to determine what reasonable accommodations he might require. In addition, Lane did not attend a medical separation pre-termination hearing on October 2, 2009, at which he would have had the opportunity to present evidence that he was able to work with accommodations or present a release to return to work.
Lane filed a lawsuit alleging violations of the ADA and various state law claims. The district court only examined his ADA claim. To bring a claim under the ADA, an employee must show that he is disabled, that he is qualified (able to perform the essential functions of his job with or without reasonable accommodation), and he was terminated because of his disability. The district court found that Lane was not a qualified individual under the ADA. Lane’s position at JSS required him to regularly be physically present at work and interact with customers. Lane’s anxiety, depression, and stress prevented him from performing these essential tasks, as he could not multitask, communicate clearly with customers, or regularly attend work.
The district court also found that Lane could not bring a claim against the County because he did not engage in an interactive process to identify potential reasonable accommodations and did not identify reasonable accommodations that the County could have provided. Under the ADA, Lane was required to engage in the interactive process of communication and good-faith discussions of possible reasonable accommodations. His doctor proposed only vague and unreasonable job modifications that could have possibly accommodated his anxiety. In addition, he did not provide these recommendations for a year after he had stopped working. Therefore, the district court dismissed Lane’s claims under the ADA.
The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court. Qualified individuals protected under the ADA must be able to perform the essential functions of their job with or without reasonable accommodation. Lane’s position required him to be physically present at his place of work on a regular basis. Lane’s condition meant that he could not be present at his place of work regularly with or without reasonable accommodation. Therefore, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Lane’s ADA claim.
A qualified disabled employee must be able to perform the essential functions of his job, with or without a reasonable accommodation. If the employee cannot perform the essential functions of his job even with an accommodation, he is not qualified for the job and does not fall under the protection of the ADA.
Likewise, a disabled employee cannot sit idly by and then sue his employer for failure to accommodate. The employee must provide medical evidence to support his disability claim and, if he is requesting an accommodation, must suggest at least one reasonable accommodation to his employer. An employer will not be held liable for failing to engage in the “interactive process”, a conversation between employee and employer in order to find a reasonable accommodation, unless the employee proposes an accommodation.
**Visit our Premium Website for more information on Disability Discrimination . **
