Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Essential Function (STATUTES AND REGS (Westlaw / Regulations/ CFR /…

- - - - Filter - Remove D. Minn
        (though binding, stare decisis is overcome more easily)
        23 Cases
  - - - Scruggs v. Pulaski County, 817 F.3d 1087 (8th Cir. 2016)
        
        Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Kelly, Circuit Judge, held that:
        
        lifting 40 pounds was essential function of employee's position;
        
        employee failed to establish that she could have performed her position with reasonable accommodations;
        
        employee's request for additional FMLA leave was not statutorily protected activity; and
        
        county did not violate FMLA by placing employee on intermittent leave and then terminating her.
        
        NOTE: six headnotes are organized by the key number identified in AmJur article 78k1218(4)
        
        Headnote 11
        Disabled former county employee failed to establish that she could have performed the essential functions of her juvenile detention officer position with a reasonable accommodation, and thus she was not a qualified employee entitled to bring ADA discrimination claims against county; even if extending employee's FMLA leave to allow her to obtain a revised FMLA certification was a reasonable accommodation, there was no evidence that she could have obtained that certification, county was not required to accept certification that conflicted with prior certification issued by employee's physician, and there was no indication that moving employee to night shift would have eliminated the need for her to be able to lift 40 pounds. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, § 2 et seq., 42 U.S.C.A. § 12101 et seq.; Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, § 2 et seq., 29 U.S.C.A. § 2601 et seq.
        
        Headnote 8
        In determining whether a job function is essential, such that a plaintiff must be able to perform that function to be considered a qualified individual under the ADA, the Court of Appeals considers evidence including what functions the employer thinks are essential, written job descriptions, how much time an employee spends on the job performing the function, the consequences of not having the employee perform the function, and whether other current employees in similar jobs perform the function. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, § 2 et seq., 42 U.S.C.A. § 12101 et seq.
        4 Cases that cite this headnote; 1 published AND within 8th Cir
        
        see Kowitz
        
        Headnote 7
        “Essential functions” of a position, in context of determining whether a plaintiff is a qualified individual entitled to bring ADA discrimination claims, are those considered fundamental to the position the disabled person desires; a job function may be essential if the reason the position exists is to perform that function, or if a limited number of employees are available among whom the performance of the job function can be distributed. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, § 2 et seq., 42 U.S.C.A. § 12101 et seq.
        4 Cases that cite this headnote; 1 published AND within 8th Cir
        
        Kowitz v. Trinity Health, 839 F.3d 742 (8th Cir. 2016)
        
        Headnote 9
        When determining if a plaintiff is a qualified individual under the ADA, the Court of Appeals considers the employer's judgment of what constitutes an essential job function highly probative, though not conclusive. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, § 2 et seq., 42 U.S.C.A. § 12101 et seq.
        
        Headnote 5
        To be considered a “qualified individual” under the ADA, an employee must: (1) possess the requisite skill, education, experience, and training for her position, and (2) be able to perform the essential job functions, with or without reasonable accommodation. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, § 2 et seq., 42 U.S.C.A. § 12101 et seq.
        2 Cases that cite this headnote: both are unpublished decisions from district courts outside of D. Minn but within 8th Cir.
        
        Headnote 10
        In determining whether disabled former county employee was a qualified individual entitled to bring ADA discrimination claims against the county, the ability to lift 40 pounds was an essential function of the employee's position as a juvenile detention officer; county indicated that the lifting requirement was related to the need for officers to protect juveniles from harming themselves and others, lifting requirement was in written job description, all other officers were able to lift 40 pounds, and employee conceded that the job sometimes required her to lift detainees off the ground and to restrain juveniles who weighed more than 40 pounds. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, § 2 et seq., 42 U.S.C.A. § 12101 et seq.
        
        also has key number 78k1225(2)
        What are reasonable accommodations; factors considered
      - Hill v. Kansas City Area Transp. Authority, 181 F.3d 891 (8th Cir. 1999)
        NOTE: Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment - Declined to Extend by Singh v. George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, D.C.Cir., December 4, 2007
        different jurisdiction -- negative treatment is not binding; still need to investigate
      - Lloyd v. Hardin County, 207 F.3d 1080 (8th Cir. 2000)
        
        Search for Earlier Cases
        
        reading case with eye toward whether requested accommodations would be unreasonable
        
        See Benson v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 62 F.3d 1108, 1112–13 (8th Cir.1995) (‘‘An employer need not reallocate the essential functions of a job, which a qualified individual must perform.’’);
        
        Hardin County could not reasonably be required to take actions such as hiring a new employee or reassigning existing employees to perform essential functions of Lloyd’s job. See id. at 5–8 (citing, e.g., Mole v. Buckhorn Rub- ber Products, Inc., 165 F.3d 1212, 1218 (8th Cir.) (‘‘An employer is not required to hire additional employees or redistribute essential functions to other employees.’’), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 120 S.Ct. 65, 145 L.Ed.2d 56 (1999); Moritz v. Frontier Airlines, Inc., 147 F.3d 784, 788 (8th Cir. 1998) (employer not required to reassign existing workers))
        
        Table of Authorities
        
        Search for Subsequent Cases
        
        Citing References / Cases / 8th Cir
        
        1. Stafne v. Unicare Homes
        266 F.3d 771, 775, 8th Cir.(Minn.)
        LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT - Discrimination. Nurse who could not perform duties with accommodation was not entitled to instruction on employer's duty.
        Oct. 01, 2001 Case
        2Headnote Description
        F.3d
        Cited by
        
        Seko v. Boeing/McDonnell Douglas
        15 Fed.Appx. 380, 381, 8th Cir.(Mo.)
        
        In these consolidated appeals, Clarice Seko appeals the District Court's adverse grant of summary judgment in her employment discrimination action, and its denial of her motion to...
        July 16, 2001 Case
        —
        Mentioned by
        
        Lane v. BFI Waste Systems of North America
        257 F.3d 766, 769, 8th Cir.(Mo.)
        
        LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT - Discrimination. Statement on disability benefits application precluded employee from being qualified individual under ADA.
- - - - Generally, AmDisbAct § 1 et seq.
        
        Purpose:
        Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).2 The ADA has the purpose of:
        • (1) providing a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities;
        • (2) providing clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination against individuals with disabilities;
        • (3) ensuring that the federal government plays a central role in enforcing the standards established in the ADA on behalf of individuals with disabilities; and
        • (4) invoking the sweep of congressional authority, including the power to enforce the fourteenth amendment and to regulate commerce, in order to address the major areas of discrimination faced day-to-day by people with disabilities.3
        
        Statutes:
        42 U.S.C.A. § 12101(e), added in 2008, provides that nothing in 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12201 et seq. alters the standards for determining eligibility for benefits under State worker's compensation laws or under State and Federal disability benefit programs.
        
        Cases: MANY. doesn't initially seem that any of these cases are directly relevant to my specific issue; most of these cases uphold the validity of the Act. Look for find cases through other sources.
      - essential job functions, AmDisbAct § 40 et seq., JobDiscrim § 195
        
        AmDisbAct § 40 et seq. Not Found
        
        45A Am. Jur. 2d Job Discrimination § 195
        American Jurisprudence, Second Edition
        February 2017 Update
        Job Discrimination
        III. Types of Prohibited Discrimination: Race, Religion, Sex, National Origin, Age, Disability
        F. Disability
        2.Disability Discrimination Provisions Applicable to Federal Contractors, Federal Employers, and Recipients of Federal Funds
        b. Persons Protected Against Discrimination
        (2) Requirement of Qualification for Position
        § 195. What are "essential functions" of job
        
        A job function may be considered essential for any of several reasons, including but not limited to the following:
        (1) The function may be essential because the reason the position exists is to perform that function;
        (2) The function may be essential because of the limited number of employees available among whom the performance of that job function can be distributed; and/or
        (3) The function may be highly specialized so that the incumbent in the position is hired for his or her expertise or ability to perform the particular function.
        
        Evidence of whether a particular function is essential includes, but is not limited to:
        (1) The contractor's or employer's judgment as to which functions are essential;
        (2) Written job descriptions prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job;
        (3) The amount of time spent on the job performing the function;
        (4) The consequences of not requiring the incumbent to perform the function;
        (5) The terms of a collective bargaining agreement;
        (6) The work experience of past incumbents in the job; and/or
        (7) The current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs.4
        
        Practice Tips
        
        The complex question of what constitutes an essential job function for purposes of the ADA involves fact-sensitive considerations and must be determined on a case-by-case basis.
        
        Under the ADA, a court must evaluate the essential functions of the job without considering the effect of any special arrangements.
        
        Richardson v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp., 594 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2010).
        
        Cases
        
        In determining, for purposes of accommodation under the ADA, whether a function is essential to a particular position, court grants employer substantial deference. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 § 102, 42 U.S.C.A. § 12112(a); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1) McNair v. District of Columbia, 11 F. Supp. 3d 10 (D.D.C. 2014).
        
        An employee's specific personal experience is of no consequence in essential functions equation, in Americans with Disabilities Amendment Act (ADAAA) action; instead, it is written job description, employer's judgment, and experience and expectations of all employees generally which establish essential functions of job. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, § 2 et seq., 42 U.S.C.A. § 12101 et seq. Minnihan v. Mediacom Communications Corp., 987 F. Supp. 2d 918 (S.D. Iowa 2013).
        
        Minnihan v. Mediacom Communications Corp.
        779 F.3d 803 (8th Cir. 2015)
        
        :explode::explode::explode::explode::explode::explode::explode::explode::explode:
        REASONABLE ACCOMODATIONS
        :explode::explode::explode::explode::explode::explode::explode::explode::explode:
        
        11 more items...
        
        West's Key Number Digest, Civil Rights Key Number 78k1218(4)
- - - - Index
        Back injury or condition, §§ 3[b]- 3[d], 5[b]- 5[d], 6[d], 7[a]
        Environment, change in, § 6
        Work environment, change in, § 6
        Nurses, §§ 3[c], 5[a], 5[b], 5[d], 6[b], 7[a]
        Responsibilities, change in, § 6
        Sitting, §§ 3[a], 6[d]
        Standing, §§ 3[c], 5[c], 6[c]
        Stool, provision of, § 6[c]
        Vision, §§ 5[c], 6[c], 7[a]
        Walking, §§ 3[c], 5[c], 7[a]
      - Table of Contents
        § 1[a] Introduction—Scope
        § 1[b] Introduction—Related annotations
        § 2 Summary and comment
        § 2.5 General principles
        § 3[a] Elimination of heavy lifting or other physical requirements of the position—Reasonable accommodation required — Held to have been made
        § 3[b] Elimination of heavy lifting or other physical requirements of the position—Held not to have been made
        § 3[c] Elimination of heavy lifting or other physical requirements of the position—Accommodation not required
        § 3[d] Elimination of heavy lifting or other physical requirements of the position—Further proceedings required
        § 6[a] Change of responsibilities of position or work environment—Reasonable accommodation required — Held to have been made
        § 6[b] Change of responsibilities of position or work environment—Held not to have been made
        § 6[c] Change of responsibilities of position or work environment—Accommodation not required
        § 6[d] Change of responsibilities of position or work environment—Further proceedings required
        
        § 7[a] Providing others to perform functions of position—Accommodation not required
        § 7[b] Providing others to perform functions of position—Further proceedings required
        
        General Principles (none are binding to 8th Cir)
        
        Under the ADA, an employer is not required to accommodate an employee by exempting her from having to discharge an essential job function. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, § 102(a), 42 U.S.C.A. § 12112(a). Lang v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., 813 F.3d 447 (1st Cir. 2016).
        
        Law does not require employer to accommodate a disability by foregoing an essential function of the position or by reallocating essential functions. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, §§ 101(9), 102(b)(5)(A), 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12111(9), 12112(b)(5)(A). Jones v. Walgreen Co., 765 F. Supp. 2d 100 (D. Mass. 2011).
        
        While a reasonable accommodation under the ADA may include adjustments such as the modification of physical facilities, work schedules or equipment or job restructuring, reasonable accommodation does not mean the elimination of any of the position's essential functions. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, § 2 et seq., 42 U.S.C.A. § 12101 et seq. Hernandez v. International Shoppes, LLC, 100 F. Supp. 3d 232, 2015 A.D. Cas. (BNA) 182125 (E.D. N.Y. 2015).
        
        While a reasonable accommodation may include adjustments such as the modification of physical facilities, work schedules or equipment or job restructuring, reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) does not mean the elimination of any of the position's essential functions. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, § 102(a), 42 U.S.C.A. § 12112(a). Turowski v. Triarc Companies, Inc., 761 F. Supp. 2d 107 (S.D. N.Y. 2011).
        
        The ADA does not require an employer to make an accommodation that would impact other employees in their ability to perform their job duties, such as creating more work. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, § 101(9), 42 U.S.C.A. § 12111(9). Rudolph v. Buncombe County Government, 846 F. Supp. 2d 461 (W.D. N.C. 2012), aff'd, 2012 WL 3291795 (4th Cir. 2012).
        
        The ADA does not require an employer to relieve an employee of any essential functions of his or her job, modify those duties, reassign existing employees to perform those jobs, or hire new employees to do so. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, § 2 et seq., 42 U.S.C.A. § 12101 et seq. Miller v. Metrocare Services, 809 F.3d 827, 32 A.D. Cas. (BNA) 798, 25 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 1500 (5th Cir. 2016).
        
        2 - Summary and Comment
        In Title I of the ADA, Congress wrote an open-ended definition of what constitutes "reasonable accommodation". It was the intent of Congress that each request for reasonable accommodation be acted upon individually by the institution to which the request was made. In this way, the institution affected can make a determination as to whether the accommodation is reasonable or creates an "undue hardship". To help clarify what is a "reasonable accommodation: the Equal Employment Opportunity Commissions issued a regulatory definition under 29 CFR § 1630.2(o):
        A "reasonable accommodation is
        (a) a modification or adjustment to the job applications process, which enables a person with a disability to considered for a job;
        (b) a modification or adjustment to the job (either to the job environment or to the manner in which the job is performed) that enables a person with a disability to perform the essential functions of the job; or
        (c) a modification or adjustment in nonjob areas that enables a person with a disability to enjoy the same benefits and privileges of employment that other employees enjoy.
        In addition, the ADA and the EEOC regulations list a number of modifications that fall within the framework of reasonable accommodations. See, for example, 29 CFR § 16302(o).