On February 15 of this year, a federal Court of Appeals ruled that a jury was justified in finding an employer had willfully violated an employee's federal rights and knowingly disregarded the purpose of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") when it denied an employee's repeated requests for an accommodation.
John Shepherd began working for an AutoZone store in Illinois in
1998. He had already suffered a permanent back injury while working
for a different employer in 1996. The lingering results of the
injury were that any repetitive twisting of his torso aggravated
his condition and caused "flare-ups" of severe pain and
swelling in his back and neck. He began working at AutoZone as a
sales clerk and was promoted to parts sales manager a year later.
He was successful in sales and even won AutoZone's prestigious
"Extra Miler" award. He also was responsible for training
new employees. Most of his work involved sales and customer
service, but one of his job requirements was to mop the store
floor.
At first, Shepherd's store manager allowed Shepherd to perform
other duties rather than mopping the floor. The District Manager,
however, disapproved and insisted that Shepherd should continue
mopping the floor. Shepherd's condition caused him to have to
take medical leaves of absence during the years 2001, 2002, and
2003. Shepherd testified at trial that he sent medical forms to
AutoZone officials regarding his back condition but that he never
received an accommodation. In September 2003, Shepherd severely
injured his back while wringing out a mop and had to take another
medical leave of absence. Due to the restrictions imposed by his
doctor after that injury, the company did not allow Shepherd to
return to work but instead required him to stay on involuntary
medical leave. Shepherd was terminated in 2005.
Shepherd filed a charge with the EEOC. The EEOC pursued the lawsuit against AutoZone on Shepherd's behalf, asserting claims relating to the company's alleged failure to accommodate, its failure to allow Shepherd to return to work after 2003, and its termination of Shepherd's employment in 2005.
A trial judge earlier dismissed Shepherd's failure to
accommodate claim without having a trial (on summary judgment)
because it found that Shepherd's back injury did not meet the
definition of "disability" under the ADA. The EEOC
appealed that decision. In a 2010 opinion, the Court of Appeals
found that there was in fact evidence to support a finding that
Shepherd was disabled within the meaning of the ADA. The Court of
Appeals remanded the case to the trial court for a trial on the
merits, where the jury found in favor of Shepherd on this issue and
awarded him a significant amount of compensatory damages, back pay,
and punitive damages.
The Court noted that the AutoZone employees involved had all
received ADA training, and so it was clear that they were aware of
Shephard's federal rights. While the implementation
of training may appear to be a double-edged sword under these
circumstances, it is far too important to risk going without
it. A well-designed and consistently implemented
anti-harassment/anti-discrimination program is a crucial
preventative measure that should not be ignored. An employer would
be hard-pressed to argue that its employees did not know that
discrimination on the basis of certain federally-protected rights
was illegal.
To mop, or not to mop – the only accommodation Shepherd had
asked for was to be relieved of his mopping duties because the
repetitive motion caused flare-ups in his back condition. The
testimony at trial revealed that, although Shepherd had been
requesting this accommodation for a couple of years, his request
was not addressed by the company's disability coordinator until
three days after he sustained the debilitating injury (at work,
mopping) that rendered him unable to return to work in
2003.
In summary, the Court of Appeals mentioned more than once that a
company's failure to enforce an anti-discrimination policy and
its failure to follow established procedures can provide evidence
that its conduct was not merely negligent but that it may have been
reckless, intentional, and, under certain circumstances,
reprehensible. Employers who do not want to find themselves in that
predicament should take heed and ensure they have policies that are
written, taught, and followed.
This article appeared in the April 2013 issue of HR Professionals of Greater Memphis.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.