What Do You Think: Did Employer Fail to Accommodate Caseworker with Anxiety?

Kannapolis, NC (WorkersCompensation.com) – Employers can trigger liability by failing to engage in the interactive process to identify reasonable accommodations. 

As one case illustrates, however, the conduct of the worker requesting the accommodations can impact that process as well. 

A caseworker for a county health department asked that she be transferred from the department’s call center to the front desk as a reasonable accommodation for "her anxiety and reported claustrophobia.” Her attorney sent a letter to the department stating that the caseworker suffered "multiple impairments that substantially limit her major life activities," "caused by anxiety, depression, and claustrophobia." 

The department declined to assign the employee to the front desk but asked her to provide additional information. The caseworker declined to complete the department’s reasonable accommodation request form, and never returned to work. Shortly thereafter, the department terminated her. 

The caseworker sued the department under the ADA for failing to provide her reasonable accommodations. 

To state a prima facie case for failure to accommodate under the ADA, a worker must show, among other things, that the employer refused to make reasonable accommodations for her disability. One way to demonstrate a violation, is to show that the employer failed to engage in an interactive process to identify a reasonable accommodation. However, both employee and employer must engage in that process. 

Did the department bypass its duty to reasonably accommodate the caseworker? 

A. Yes. The department failed to engage in the interactive process because it didn’t reach out to identify the accommodations the caseworker needed. 

B. No. The worker never adequately explained the nature of her impairments to the department. 

If you chose B, you sided with the court in Bostick v. Cabarrus County Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., No. 1:18-CV-1042 (M.D.N.C. 05/26/22), which held that the caseworker neglected the interactive process from the beginning, thus preventing the department from responding. 

The court pointed out that, in requesting an accommodation, and in identifying her impairments, the caseworker failed to explain the nature or severity of those impairments or the major life activities they substantially limited. Accordingly, she withheld information that would have enabled the department to take the next step in the interactive process by identifying reasonable accommodations for her. 

Moreover, the caseworker failed to engage in the interactive process in good faith, the court held. After she was denied her preferred accommodation, the court observed, the employee left work and didn’t return. The court noted that the department attempted to engage her in the interactive process again by reaching out to her for more information about her alleged disabilities and to encourage her to provide the necessary documentation, but none was forthcoming. 

Because the evidence showed that the caseworker caused the breakdown of the interactive process, the court held that no reasonable jury could find the department liable for refusing to provide the employee with a reasonable accommodation. 

This feature does not provide legal advice.