By Jim Cline and Amy Liden
In Easterling v. County of Delaware, a Pennsylvania federal district court denied a motion for a new trial after the jury found that the County of Delaware had discriminated against a corrections officer by failing to accommodate his disability. The Officer suffered from spinal stenosis which interfered with his ability to work 16 hours consecutively.
Easterling had been a correctional officer at the Delaware County Prison for twenty years. In April 2022, management of the prison transferred from the GEO Group to the County of Delaware. Under the GEO Group’s management, employees were required to work overtime but were allowed to find substitutes to cover part of their overtime shifts. When the County took over, obtaining a substitute was no longer permitted, and employees were expected to work an eight-hour overtime shift immediately following their regular eight-hour shift.
In 2016, Easterling had been diagnosed with spinal stenosis, and his doctor ordered that he could not work more than eight hours at a time. The GEO Group had accommodated this request, and Easterling was not required to work overtime. After the County took over prison management, Easterling’s doctor modified the request, stating he could work up to twelve hours at a time. However, the County refused to look at his doctor’s orders. When Easterling left work after twelve hours, in accordance with his medical restrictions, he was suspended for one day and later terminated.
Easterling argued the County failed to accommodate his spinal stenosis and discriminated against him by suspending and terminating him.
The County argued the prison was short-staffed and that mandatory overtime was necessary to ensure safety. Since Easterling could not work sixteen consecutive hours and, according to the County, could not be accommodated, they claimed termination was the only viable option.
The Court emphasized Easterling’s twenty years of unblemished service and described him as a model employee. It also noted that Easterling was willing and able to work up to four hours of overtime. Additionally, the employee handbook and CBA made no mention of a specific overtime requirement or a prohibition on finding substitutes. The Court also noted that his disability had been accommodated by the GEO Group when they managed the prison.
Importantly, the Court concluded that the jury had been properly instructed on the relevant factors for determining whether working sixteen consecutive hours was an essential function of the job. As the Court summarized:
“It was reasonable for the jury to find that working sixteen hours at a stretch is not an essential function of Easterling’s job and that there were other ways to solve any employee shortage besides mandating that Easterling, a model employee, work such extended hours.”
Since the jury instructions were correct and the jury found that working sixteen consecutive hours was not an essential job function, the County failed to accommodate Easterling’s disability. As a result, the motion for a new trial was denied.
There has been significant and increasing controversy over public safety employer requirements to work mandatory overtime. Historically mandatory overtime has not been a significant issue as most workplaces had an adequate number of overtime volunteers. Especially since the pandemic, many Departments have faced staffing shortages while at the same time, an apparent generational shift has reduced the number of employees desiring vast amounts of overtime. This has created a “perfect storm” creating an increased volume of mandatory overtime.
There have been and will continue to be employer claims that working overtime is an essential function of a job and that avoidance of overtime cannot be “reasonably accommodated.” While those controversies will continue and will be evaluated in the specific context of each workplace, this case was an easier call. Here the employee was not seeking to avoid all overtime. The doctor’s note permitted up to 12 hours of work but not 16. The employer could not plausibly explain why the extra shift couldn’t be split by assigning the last 4 hours to a different Corrections Officer. The primary test for a “reasonable accommodation” is whether it places an “undue burden” on the employer. An employer not wanting to be troubled any burden in the least amount is likely not fulfilling its duty under disability discrimination laws.
** Visit our Premium Website for more information on Rights of Injured and Disabled Public Safety Employees and Scheduling Issues**
