91视频

A week ago, I drove to a training program in Beaverton related to best practices for reasonable accommodations and the interactive process. Apple Maps took me past Beaverton High School, and I had flashbacks about high school (I cannot believe it has been almost 20 years since graduation 鈥� tragic). As I drove, I recalled a moment in my senior year when someone asked if I wanted to 鈥済o off campus for lunch.鈥� This (and maybe it has changed) was not allowed.

Dairy Queen employees used to regularly report on unsuspecting freshmen who walked across Stott Avenue from the Merle Davies Building for a Blizzard. And while I never knew the underlying reason for the policy (even while all my Jesuit friends explained that their school had no such policy), the rumors ran rampant through the school.

The consensus was that sometime between when my mom went to Beaverton High School and when I went there, a kid was hit by a train. When I was asked to leave campus temporarily, I considered the safety concerns and dismissed them (I would simply not go near the train), assessed the probability of trouble (unlikely the top five academic seniors would get in trouble for playing hooky to buy lunch), and still decided it was not the right thing to do.

And honestly, I had not thought about that choice much until I read the opinion in Tudor v. Whitehall Central School District. The court ruled an employee may qualify for a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) even if they can perform essential job functions without such an accommodation. The crux of that case was about someone leaving a high school campus.

In that case, a Whitehall Central School District (New York) teacher beginning in 2008 had an approved accommodation allowing her to take breaks off school grounds to manage her PTSD. In 2016, a new administration banned staffers from leaving campus during prep periods and disciplined the teacher for continuing her practice, despite her prior accommodation.

After a leave of absence, the teacher returned in 2017 with a modified break arrangement. It lasted until the 2019-2020 school year, when unsurprising staffing shortages prevented coverage. During the pandemic, she still left campus for breaks during remote student periods. But she believed that behavior was against policy, which worsened her anxiety. Subsequently, the teacher filed a lawsuit in which she admitted she could perform the essential functions of her job even without the added accommodation. A few months ago, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overruled the lower court and held that an employee may qualify for reasonable accommodation under the ADA even if they can perform essential job functions without it.

That begs the question of what employers should take away from this opinion. Well, knowledge is power, like a freshman at Beaverton High School knowing not to go to Dairy Queen if deciding to play hooky. Here, compliance is simple, provided one鈥檚 HR team and managers are aware of their obligations.

Namely, this decision underscores the importance of considering reasonable accommodations even when an employee with a disability can perform their job without them. A team must carefully evaluate accommodation requests to make informed, reasoned decisions since it is clear that an employee with a disability is entitled to a reasonable accommodation under the ADA, even if it is not strictly necessary or even if the person can perform essential job functions without one.

Stephen Scott is a partner in the Portland office of Fisher Phillips, a national firm dedicated to representing employers鈥� interests in all aspects of workplace law. Contact him at 503-205-8094 or [email protected].

The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the preceding commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the Daily Journal of Commerce or its editors. Neither the author nor the 91视频 guarantees the accuracy or completeness of any information published herein.