5 Top Cases on Reasonable Accommodations, Workers’ Compensation

Case 1: Baker v. Windsor Republic Doors, 42 NDLR 237 (6th Cir. 2011).

Key facts: The worker had a heart condition for which he took a leave of absence and had a pacemaker and defibrillator installed. As an accommodation, he sought use of an electromagnetic frequency alarm to alert him of danger in the workplace that could harm his pacemaker. The employer made the accommodation contingent on the worker's waiver of workers' compensation benefits.

Ruling: The worker could not establish a failure to accommodate claim because his case fell under the "regarded as" prong of the ADA, which refers to when employers believe that an employee has a disability. "Regarded as" employees can't make a case for reasonable accommodation without showing that they have an actual disability. However, the employer's offer about the waiver did raise the alarm on a retaliation claim for the worker. According to the court, there was enough for a retaliation claim because it was not unreasonable for a jury to conclude that the adverse employment action of having to waive workers' compensation benefits was precipitated by the worker's asking for accommodations.

Case 2: Aldrich v. Boeing Co., 13 NDLR 72 (10th Cir. 1998).

Key facts: A Boeing worker developed flexor tendon tenosynovitis from working with hand tools. He settled his workers' compensation claim for $30,000. The worker argued that ergonomic training or reassignment were reasonable accommodations that could have allowed him to perform the essential functions of his job.

Ruling: There were triable questions for a jury on whether Boeing could have accommodated the worker. Although Boeing was not required to bump another worker from their job, there was evidence that employees with medical restrictions were eligible to be reassigned to certain positions.

Case 3: Mitchell v. Washingtonville Cent. Sch. Dist., 16 NDLR 63 (2d Cir. 1999).

Key facts: A school custodian who had a prosthetic leg due to a previous amputation developed "skin breakdowns" and other health issues that he attributed to "strenuous walking" at work and for which he was awarded weekly workers' compensation benefits. When the school district terminated the custodian's employment, the custodian sued, alleging, among other things, a failure to accommodate under the ADA.

Ruling: The court rejected the custodian's claim because in support of his workers' compensation claim, he maintained that he was too disabled to work. Although he argued that there were possible new positions that could have been created to allow him to continue working, the custodian failed on this argument too. The court noted that the ADA does not require employers to find another job for an employee who is not qualified for the job he was doing to meet reasonable accommodation requirements.

Case 4: Caraballo v. City of Jersey City Police Department, 204 A.3d 254 (N.J. 2019).

Key facts: A detective filed a workers' compensation claim related to a knee injury he experienced on the job and underwent surgery. Several years later, the detective became a candidate for knee replacement surgery, and he sought the surgery as a workers' compensation benefit, which was denied. The detective argued that this denial was a failure to accommodate under state law analogous to the ADA.

Ruling: Following the analysis from Desmond v. Yale New Haven Hosp. Inc., 41 NDLR 233 (D. Conn. 2010), the court explained that while reasonable accommodations involve the work environment and workplace barriers, employers have no obligation to acquiesce to an employee's request for certain benefits or remunerations. As in Desmond, the court held that employers have no responsibility to monitor an employee's medical treatment or ensure that an employee receives appropriate treatment.

Case 5: Yovtecheva v. City of Philadelphia Warter Dept., 47 NDLR 58 (3d Cir. 2013).

Key facts: A chemist for a city received a workers' compensation award due to dizziness and trouble breathing the chemist suffered as a result of her exposure to certain fumes in the workplace. She also sought reasonable accommodations under the ADA in the form of moving to a different laboratory or replacement of the offending chemical. The chemist claimed that the workers' compensation judge's findings of disability were preclusive in her ADA case.

Ruling: The court did not reach the question in the chemist's case because her refusal to attempt the use of a partial-face respirator as a reasonable accommodation warranted summary judgment against her.  Nonetheless, the court did explain that even if workers' compensation findings in some circumstances could have a preclusive effect in a federal District Court, in this case the workers' compensation judge's narrow focus on whether the chemist was entitled to benefits did not address the issue of accommodation.