Employer Did Not
Violate ADA by Not Excusing Unannounced Absences
[Posted 01/02/2008]
The 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a
lower court’s ruling that an employer did not
violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by
terminating an employee who suffered from depression
for attendance problems.
In its opinion, the appellate court pointed out the
ADA provides that when “the disability, resulting
limitations, and necessary reasonable
accommodations, are not open, obvious, and apparent
to the employer, as is often the case when mental
disabilities are involved, the initial burden rests
primarily upon the employee...to specifically
identify the disability and resulting limitations,
and to suggest the reasonable accommodations.”
Elizabeth Rask claimed she informed her employers
she was having trouble with her depression
medication and “I might miss a day here and there
because of it.” The court rejected her reasoning
and said that because Rask did not inform Fresenius
Medical Care of the specific limitations that her
depression gave rise to, it had no duty to find an
accommodation for her.
The appellate court further said that allowing Rask
to be absent cannot as a matter of law be a
reasonable accommodation given the circumstances of
her employment. Rask was responsible for
administering dialysis to seriously ill patients,
and only worked two days a week.
The law required that Rask demonstrate she could
perform the essential functions of her job either
with or without a reasonable accommodation in order
to be considered a “qualified individual” under the
ADA. After a history of unexpected absences, Rask
admitted she could not come to work on a regular
and reliable basis, which was essential for her
position, the court ruled.
Rask also claimed that Fresenius violated the
Family and Medical Leave Act by terminating her
employment based on absences for which she should
have been given FMLA leave. However, the appellate
court agreed with the lower court that Rask would
need to apprise Fresenius of more than the mere
fact that she had been diagnosed with depression to
put them on notice that she had a serious health
condition.
The court concluded that there was no evidence in
the record that Rask at any point gave her
supervisors any details about her depression, its
severity, or any incapacity that it might give rise
to, and that side effects of medication are not
covered by the FMLA because as they are not a
“chronic health condition.”
“The evidence in this case simply cannot support a
finding that Fresenius was on notice that Ms. Rask
needed FMLA leave,” the opinion concluded.
Related Links:
PlanSponsor.com News
of Dec. 31, 2007 (free login required)
8th Circuit Court Opinion
(PDF
33KB)
Return to News
Summary Page:
Occupational Health News Summaries