Must DHL Deliver Accommodations for Manager’s Debilitating Hypertension, Anxiety?

What Do You Think?

Employers must reasonably accommodate an employee with a disability. But that’s only the case if the employee is “qualified.” A recent decision out of Puerto Rico illustrates why it's so important for employers to know what a workers’ short-term disability application says when defending against a failure to accommodate claim.

The Area Operations Manager in that case oversaw delivery and pick-up throughout Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, according to his job description. It was no wonder that he began to experience hypertension and anxiety. 

His health challenges reached the point that two doctors recommended he remain on leave indefinitely. He could, they said, sit, lift, or type, for only very brief periods. He often would cry and experience panic attacks. One doctor wrote:

[He is] depressed, crying, sad, unsocial, anxious, nervous, restless, cannot concentrate, cannot sleep, worried, has panic attacks that cause vomiting, chest pain, sweating and headache[s]. He is very stressed.

The manager sought short-term disability benefits before asking for accommodations. As part of his application, he included two doctors’ certifications stating that, because work-place stress would worsen his severe hypertension, shortness of breath, and anxiety, he was unable to work.

When the company terminated him, he sued it under Law 44, which is Puerto Rico’s version of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

To establish that he was entitled to reasonable accommodations under the ADA or Law 44, the court noted, the manager had to show that he was a qualified individual who could perform the essential duties of his position 

Was manager entitled to reasonable accommodations?

A. No. He was never cleared to return to work.

B. Yes. The company could have extended his leave indefinitely.

If you selected A, you agreed with the court in Acevedo v. D.H.L. Express, Inc., No. Civil No. 22-01539 (GMM) (D.P.R. 01/07/25), which held that the employee was not entitled to accommodations.

The court stated that it was assuming that the manager was a person with a disability as defined under the ADA. However, the court observed, he could not succeed in his lawsuit because he was not a “qualified” individual with a disability. That is, he was not qualified to perform the essential functions of his job as those functions were delineated in his job description.

As evidence, the court pointed in part to his application for short-term disability benefits, in which two doctors stated in fitness-for-duty certifications stated that he was unable to work.

“[The manager] did not provide evidence as to how his inability to work for purposes of obtaining disability benefits is consistent with his argument that he is a qualified individual for his disability discrimination claim,” the District Court wrote.

The manager, the court added, was responsible for ensuring on-time pick-up and delivery of packages throughout Peurto Rico. Given doctors' statements that his ability to function at work was highly limited and given that he was never cleared to return to work, he was not capable of fulfilling his job duties. Because he was not qualified, DHL had no obligation to reasonably accommodate him.

The court granted judgment to DHL.

Share This Article: