Court rules against employee asking for policy change
Published date | 01 September 2020 |
DOI | http://doi.org/10.1002/nba.30844 |
Date | 01 September 2020 |
NONPROFIT BUSINESS ADVISOR SEPTEMBER 2020
10 © 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC • All rights reserved
DOI: 10.1002/nba
Employment Law
Here’s a look at several recent notable lawsuits involving nonprots. Nonprots should regularly review
employment laws and their compliance efforts to avert similar issues.
Disability
Judge rules against former employer
on ADA claim
The plaintiff worked for years in an unspecied
capacity for Berks County despite her chronic anxiety,
depression, chronic sinusitis and bronchitis.
Because of her various medical problems, the
county occasionally granted her time off pursuant
to the Family Medical Leave Act during her last few
years on the job.
In June 2018, the plaintiff called in one morning
shortly before the start of a shift to say she needed
some more medical leave because she wasn’t able to
come in that day. The plaintiff then followed up by
submitting a formal request for FMLA leave when
she returned to work the next day.
The county denied that request and red her a little
over a week later.
The plaintiff then led a suit that made several
claims.
One was that the refusal to honor her FMLA leave
request constituted failure to (1) provide a reasona-
ble accommodation in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act and (2) engage in the requisite
interactive process.
Another was that her termination was in retaliation
for requesting medical leave.
The county led a motion to dismiss.
With respect to the issue of accommodations, the
county argued: (1) calling out sick couldn’t reasonably
be construed as a request for an accommodation,
(2) it had engaged in the interactive process over the
years by being lenient about granting her medical
leave and (3) the plaintiff was red simply because
she had exceeded the number of authorized expected
absences that had been certied by her own doctor.
The district court judge said a plaintiff claiming
a failure to accommodate must allege: (1) her em-
ployer knew she was disabled within the meaning of
the ADA, (2) she had requested an accommodation,
(3) her employer didn’t make a good faith effort to
assist her and (4) she could have been reasonably
accommodated.
The judge also said that a medical leave request
could sometimes amount to an accommodation
request under the ADA if it would enable the em-
ployee to perform her essential job functions in the
near future.
EMPLOYEE WINS ➔ The judge ruled the
county’s references to the plaintiff’s doctor and the
maximum allotted absences suggested the case should
continue because there were important issues to be
explored during the course of the litigation.
The judge also ruled that the plaintiff had ade-
quately stated a retaliation claim because: (1) it was
unlawful for an employer to retaliate against an em-
ployee based upon her opposition to anything made
unlawful by the ADA, (2) the plaintiff’s June 2018
leave request amounted to an action protected by
the act and (3) she had adequately alleged a causal
connection between her request and being red. He
explained that because the gap between the protected
activity and the termination had only been eight days,
the timing was sufciently suspicious to plausibly
suggest that the former motivated the latter.
[Dreibelbis v. County of Berks, U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 5:19-
cv-4946, 2/7/2020].
Disability accommodations
Court rules against employee asking
for policy change
The plaintiff was a long-time City of Quincy
employee.
A co-worker allegedly began sexually harassing
her in April 2014. That harassment purportedly es-
calated in July when the co-worker allegedly entered
the plaintiff’s ofce, sat down beside her and exposed
his erect penis. The plaintiff (1) took several days
off, (2) then notied the city about the incident and
(3)provided a medical note indicating she wouldn’t
be able to return to work for 30 days.
The city emailed the plaintiff’s attorney in Oc-
tober that it expected her to return to work within
a week.
The lawyer responded in writing that his client
was “neither physically nor mentally able to return
to work.” He attached a copy of a therapist’s report
that stated the plaintiff’s “symptoms are triggered and
worsen when she is faced with the idea of returning
To continue reading
Request your trial