It was a victory for employers this week when Maryland’s federal district court determined that an employer is not obligated to accommodate a disabled employee who cannot perform the essential functions of his job by reassigning the employee to a new position that eliminates the essential functions of the former position. Raiford v. Md. Dep’t of Juvenile Servs., No. 8:12-cv-03795, D. Md. (7/21/15).
Plaintiff Raiford was a Resident Advisor (RA) with the Department of Juvenile Services (DJS) at a youth detention facility. As an RA, Raiford was responsible for providing care and supervision to youth offenders. In June 2010, while working to separate juveniles engaged in a fight, Raiford injured his knee.
Raiford initially returned to light duty work in the gatehouse, a position that did not involve contact with juveniles. Several months later, he underwent surgery on his knee and went on accident leave for about three months during his recovery. In April 2011, Raiford’s doctor recommended that he return to his light duty work station. DJS was unable to accommodate the request and granted Raiford an additional month of leave. During that time, DJS required Raiford to undergo a workability evaluation to determine whether he could perform the essential duties of his position with or without reasonable accommodations. Based on the evaluation, he could not.
DJS advised Raiford that he could apply for a vacant position, pursue a rehabilitation program, or resign. It also informed Raiford that several accommodations had been considered and rejected, including job restructuring, reassignment and work from home.
Raiford opted to resign and sue. In his complaint, Raiford alleged that DJS failed to accommodate him under the Rehabilitation Act (prohibiting disability discrimination in the federal sector) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when it refused to reassign him permanently to the gatehouse position. According to Raiford, DJS had an obligation to reassign him to a job he was qualified to do.
DJS, however, argued that Raiford could not establish his claim because assigning Raiford to the gatehouse position would have “effectively eliminated the undisputed essential function of the RA Trainee position to provide direct care and supervision to youth.” The Court agreed.
Calling Raiford’s arguments “misguided” and reflecting a “misunderstanding of the applicable law,” the Court explained that Raiford failed to provide any evidence that a permanent reassignment to the gatehouse position would enable him to perform the essential functions of his RA position, which requires supervision of youth. As a result, summary judgment was granted in favor of DJS.