Employers may wish to avoid learning the details about their employees’ medical conditions. But trying to avoid such knowledge does not necessarily absolve employers of applicable reasonable accommodation obligations under the ADA. A recent case out of the Eighth Circuit demonstrates the importance of engaging in the interactive process when an employee asks for an accommodation. Garrison v. Dolgencorp, LLC, No. 18-1066 (8th Cir. 10/3/19).
Rochelle Garrison worked as a lead sales associate at Dollar General where she, her supervisor (Bell), and two others were “key holders” and required to coordinate work schedules so that one of them was always available when the store opened and closed each day. Garrison suffered from anxiety and depression and wanted to take a leave of absence to address her conditions. She sent a text message to Bell one day asking, “[h]ow can I request a leave of absence[?]” Bell responded she was unsure but would speak to the manager.
After receiving no further reply, Garrison sent Bell a follow-up text. Bell ultimately told Garrison that there was no leave of absence available; that she could stay at Dollar General as long as she could “do the job and not be sick all the time”; and that she should read the employee handbook. At a subsequent meeting, Garrison told Bell she wanted to take a leave of absence due to her anxiety and depression. Bell simply told her no leave was available and that if Garrison continued to miss her shifts, she could not continue as a full-time employee or a “key holder.” A week later, Garrison missed a shift due to anxiety and gastritis. Bell denied Garrison’s request for vacation time off. Garrison quit, stating that it was the only way she could “get better.”
Garrison filed a discrimination action under the ADA, among other claims. The district court dismissed the lawsuit, and Garrison appealed.
The Eighth Circuit reversed the dismissal as to Garrison’s ADA reasonable accommodation claim. In addition to Bell’s knowledge of Garrison’s health conditions, the court found that Garrison also produced enough to show that she had indeed requested an accommodation, despite having never used the word “accommodation” and having asked only about the availability of leave options. The court noted that the inquiry is not limited to the precise words an employee uses or to an employee’s suggestion of what accommodation might be most appropriate for the employee. In other words, an employee does not need to use “magic words” in order to exercise the right to request an accommodation under the ADA.
Moreover, the court pointed out that in response to Garrison’s request for an accommodation, Dollar General failed to adequately engage in the “interactive process.” This refers to an employer’s obligation to try and identify a reasonable accommodation once the employer is on notice that an employee needs one. In this case, Bell merely directed Garrison to “read the employee handbook,” which was simply insufficient.
Employers should be aware not only of whether any reasonable accommodation obligations apply to their workplaces, but they also should understand what a request for accommodation looks like and the best ways to handle such a request. Developing a sufficient reasonable accommodation policy is an important step toward protection from liability.