Safety Boot Requirement Stomps Worker’s Reasonable Accommodation Argument

08 Oct, 2024 Frank Ferreri

                               
Case File

A worker couldn't get boots to work for her feet that satisfied safety rules, so she couldn't perform the essential functions of her job. Simply Research subscribers have access to the full text of the decision.

Case

Radenbaugh v. U.S. Steel Clairton Works, 2024 WL 4436535 (W.D. Pa. 10/07/24)

What Happened

A chemical analyst for a manufacturing plant was required to wear metatarsal boots while onsite at the plant, and the plant provided employees with footwear that was ANSI-certified.

The analyst struggled to find boots that fit her properly because she had a square shaped fifth metatarsal, and after several attempts to find functional boots were unsuccessful, the analyst resigned as part of a workers' compensation settlement.

The analyst sued under the ADA, alleging that it failed to accommodate her disability when it required to wear ANSI-certified boots.

Rule of Law

Under the ADA, an employee must be "qualified," meaning that she can perform the essential functions of her job with or without reasonable accommodation. Factors for determining whether a function is essential include:

(1) The employer's judgment.

(2) Written job descriptions prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job.

(3) The amount of time spent on the job performing the function.

(4) The consequences of not requiring the incumbent to perform the function.

(5) The terms of a collective bargaining agreement.

(6) The work experience of past incumbents in the job.

(7) The current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs.

What the District Court Said

The boot requirement was an essential function of the analyst's job, and the analyst's requested accommodation of "custom-made ANSI-certified footwear" could not be found.

Thus, the analyst "failed to make her facial showing that her requested accommodation of custom-made footwear was possible." Because the accommodation wasn't possible, the court concluded that the analyst could perform the essential functions of her job.

The court entered summary judgment in favor of the plant.

Takeaway

Being unable to comply with a dress requirement that is job-related and consistent with business necessity, such as a safety rule mandating the wearing of ANSI-certified metatarsal boots, renders a person not qualified under the ADA.


  • AI california case management case management focus claims compensability compliance compliance corner courts covid do you know the rule ethics exclusive remedy florida glossary check Healthcare health care hr homeroom insurance iowa kentucky leadership medical NCCI new jersey new york ohio opioids osha pennsylvania Safety simply research state info technology texas violence WDYT west virginia what do you think women's history month workers' comp 101 workers' recovery workers' compensation contact information Workplace Safety Workplace Violence


  • Read Also

    About The Author

    • Frank Ferreri

      Frank Ferreri, M.A., J.D. covers workers' compensation legal issues. He has published books, articles, and other material on multiple areas of employment, insurance, and disability law. Frank received his master's degree from the University of South Florida and juris doctor from the University of Florida Levin College of Law. Frank encourages everyone to consider helping out the Kind Souls Foundation and Kids' Chance of America.

    Read More

    Request a Demo

    To request a free demo of one of our products, please fill in this form. Our sales team will get back to you shortly.