What Makes an Accommodation “Reasonable?”

When an employer has a disabled employee who requires an accommodation in order to perform the essential functions of his/her job, the challenge is to determine what type of accommodation is "reasonable" under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). Reasonable to the employee? Reasonable to the employer? Reasonable to other employees? Are disabled employees entitled to special treatment?

When a disabled employee is seeking a job reassignment through a competitive hiring process, the answer to the last question is No, according to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

As we stated in an earlier blog post, the ADA does not require an employer to provide an employee with the exact accommodation that he/she wants. In United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Joseph's Hospital, 842 F.3d 1333 (11^th Cir. 2016), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals applied this rule in the context of employer hiring policies and held that the ADA's reasonable accommodation requirement does not require reassignment without competition for, or preferential treatment of, the disabled.

Leokadia Bryk, a disabled nurse, sought a reasonable accommodation in the form of a job reassignment to another unit at St. Joseph's Hospital because she required the use of a cane, which posed a safety hazard in the psychiatric ward where she worked. She was given the opportunity to apply for other jobs at St. Joseph's Hospital, but was required to compete for them. She applied for three positions, but was not offered any of them because she was not considered the most qualified applicant. When Bryk did not obtain another Hospital position, the Hospital terminated her employment and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought suit on her behalf. The case went to trial, resulting in a jury verdict in the Hospital's favor. The EEOC appealed.

The Court noted that it is well-settled that employers are only required to provide alternative employment opportunities reasonably available under the employer's existing policies. Further, the Court held that the ADA does not require employers to ignore competitive hiring policies:

Requiring reassignment in violation of an employer's best-qualified hiring or transfer policy is not reasonable "in the run of cases." As things generally run, employers operate their businesses for profit, which requires efficiency and good performance. Passing over the best-qualified job applicants in favor of less-qualified ones is not a reasonable way to promote efficiency or good performance. In the case of hospitals, which is this case, the well-being and even the lives of patients can depend on having the best-qualified personnel. Undermining a hospital's best-qualified hiring or transfer policy imposes substantial costs on the hospital and potentially on patients.

In short, the ADA only requires an employer allow a disabled person to compete equally with the rest of the world for a vacant position.

Practice Tip: While an employee with a disability is not entitled to special treatment when competing against other employees for a position, he or she is also protected from discrimination because he or she has a disability. It is important not to make assumptions or rely upon stereotypes about a disabled person's ability or inability to do a particular job.