Cutting Paid Work Hours Reasonably Accommodates Janitor with Foot Pain

New Orleans, LA (WorkersCompensation.com)–An employer can offer an accommodation that results in a salary reduction, so long as it’s a reasonable accommodation. 

A custodian for the postal service who had severe foot pain learned that when he and his doctor insisted that he needed one hour of rest for every hour of work in Allen v. U.S. Postal Service, No. 21-30699 (5th Cir. 06/01/22). 

The custodian suffered from chronic plantar fasciitis, an inflammatory foot condition that could be agitated if he stood for long periods or engaged in strenuous physical activity. Because of the condition, he was in “24/7 pain,” the custodian said.  

The custodian’s doctor recommended that the employee only work standing for one hour at a time, followed by one hour of rest. The custodian put in a request for "desk work only" as a reasonable accommodation. When the agency asked for more information from the doctor concerning what tasks the janitor could perform during his rest periods, the janitor failed to respond. 

The agency granted the following accommodation: The custodian would be allowed to perform light maintenance work and rest every other hour, but he would need to clock out during his rest breaks. 

Not thrilled with the decrease in his income that would result from spending half his day on unpaid rest breaks, the custodian sued the agency for failing to provide him a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. 

In addressing the claim, the court explained that a reasonable accommodation is an adjustment to the job that enables a worker with a disability to perform the essential functions of that position. In its analysis, the court also articulated the following five facts employers should know about reasonable accommodations. 

 The court held that the accommodation the agency offered was reasonable even if it wasn’t the one the custodian preferred. After all, the court observed, the accommodation addressed the limitations that the doctor articulated: it narrowed the worker’s job duties and permitted rest after each hour of work. The only caveat—understandably hard for the custodian to swallow—was that he had to clock out for rest breaks. 

As to the worker’s request for a desk job, the court observed that there were no desk jobs in the custodial department. Further, the CBA prevented the agency from transferring the worker to another job. Accordingly, the offered accommodation, the court remarked, may have been the only reasonable accommodation available. 

Finally, the court pointed out that the custodian declined to provide additional medical information that would have enlightened the agency as to what light activities were suitable. “That left the Postal Service with few alternatives,” the court wrote. “Even if [the custodian] could perform some light-duty tasks without rest, the Postal Service did not know which tasks would be too strenuous.” 

The 5th Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling that the agency reasonably accommodated the custodian.