Can Lonely Cubicle Worker Get 'Floor Coach' to Allay his Isolation?

Eau Claire, WI (WorkersCompensation.com)–While employers may sometimes find it necessary to accommodate employees in unusual ways, it’s a different story when there’s no medical information showing the worker needs the accommodation. 

A case in which an insurance claim processor with chronic fatigue syndrome asked for a special chair and floor coach to talk to him illustrates that point.  

In Schneider v. Harmon Solutions Group, No. 21-2813 (7th Cir. 06/23/22, unpublished), the processor’s CFS made it difficult for him to stand for long periods. But a supervisor told him that, to protect customers’ confidentiality, he could not stand; the company’s cubicles only blocked the sound of phone conversations when the speaker was seated. 

Nevertheless, the processor asked the company to allow him to stand during customer calls, and he provided a supporting doctor's note. That same day, the company granted the request. It relocated him to a standing desk behind a cluster of cubicles, away from other employees to maintain customer confidentiality. 

However, the processor asserted the accommodation isolated him from his coworkers and had poor lighting. Thus, he requested a "floor coach" who would talk to him periodically so he wouldn’t feel so isolated. The company disallowed that request. The processor then asked for a different kind of chair, instead of a standing desk. Because the worker provided no medical note to back up the request, the company denied it. 

The coworker was eventually fired for allegedly harassing a female coworker who rebuffed his continual advances and inappropriate statements—including telling her he cried himself to sleep when she declined to hug him, and offering to discuss pornography and prostitution. The processor allegedly continued the conduct, even after the company warned him to stop.  

The processor sued the company under the ADA. He asserted that his employer: 1) failed to reasonably accommodation him; and 2) unlawfully fired him because of his disability. The company sought summary judgment. 

Failure to Offer Reasonable Accommodation 

The court explained that to survive summary judgment on a failure-to-accommodate claim, the processor had to introduce evidence that: 1) he was a qualified individual with a disability, 2) his employer was aware of his disability, and 3) his employer failed to reasonably accommodate his disability.  

The court rejected the employee’s contention that the company’s efforts to accommodate his condition were unreasonable. Here, the court observed, there was no dispute that the company “offered him a standing desk — the exact accommodation he requested — on the same day that he made the request.” It was true, the court remarked, that the employee did not care for the desk because of its location and lighting. “But he did not furnish credible medical or other evidence that the desk's location … or its lighting materially impaired his ability to handle customers' calls satisfactorily,” the court wrote.  

Further, the court stated, the ADA does not require an employer to accommodate a worker’s mere personal preferences, so long as its proposed option is reasonable.  Finally, the court found that the company’s denial of the request for a new chair and visits from a floor coach were reasonable. “The supervisor followed [the company’s] policy (also unchallenged) that required a doctor's note alongside each accommodation request, and [the worker] never provided one,” the court wrote. 

Unlawful Termination

As to the employee’s claim that the company terminated him because of his disability, the court noted that the worker failed to clearly link the firing to his CFS. Specifically, he provided no evidence that, but for the condition, he would not have been discharged. Further, the court stated, it was undisputed that the employee violated the company’s professionalism policies by pursuing and sending unsolicited messages to a coworker. 

The court granted the company summary judgment on both the processor’s claims,