An employer that provides an accommodation to an employee under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) may think it’s out of the woods. But employees aren’t always satisfied even with reasonable accommodations. The recent case of Swanson v. Village of Flossmoor represents a constructive example to consider.

Request denied

The plaintiff, a detective for the defendant village, suffered from strokes. After his first stroke, the plaintiff took a leave of absence pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for three weeks. Upon his return, he provided a doctor’s note that suggested part-time work for the following month. The plaintiff used two days of his accrued medical leave each week, allowing him to receive a full paycheck while working only three days a week.

Thereafter, the plaintiff claimed that he started experiencing headaches and lightheadedness, so he asked whether he could be placed on light duty. The employer asserted that its policy permitted light-duty work at the discretion of the employee’s department and required a physician’s report specifying the employee’s limitations.

The plaintiff’s request, however, was denied. He was told that no light-duty position existed in his department, nor did his doctor recommend it after the first stroke. Rather, the physician recommended part-time work, which the plaintiff was granted under the aforementioned three-day- a-week arrangement.

Lawsuit filed

Later, the plaintiff suffered a second stroke that rendered him completely unable to perform his job responsibilities. He requested another FMLA leave, which the employer approved while the plaintiff continued to also use his paid medical leave to cover his absence.

About two and a half months later, the plaintiff received a letter informing him that his FMLA leave had expired and that his paid medical leave would also expire in one week. The letter further stated that the plaintiff could request an unpaid leave of absence — even though his FMLA leave had expired — and, upon his return to work, he’d most likely be reassigned to another division.

The plaintiff’s doctor released him back to work without any restrictions, but the plaintiff suffered another medical episode. After this episode, his doctor prohibited him from returning to work. The plaintiff resigned from his job, stating that he was physically unable to perform his job duties with the department as a detective. He requested to remain on unpaid medical leave for a few months so that he could still remain on the employer’s health plan. The employer approved this request.

Nonetheless, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming that the employer had violated the ADA by not providing him with light-duty work after his first stroke. The trial court granted summary judgment in the employer’s favor, and the plaintiff appealed.

Judgment affirmed

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judg- ment in favor of the employer. It found that the defendant hadn’t violated the ADA by choosing not to place the plaintiff in a light- duty position.

The appeals court relied on the fact that the defendant’s employee manual made it clear that the decision to offer an employee light-duty work was at the discretion of the department in which he or she worked. The manual also stated that a request for light-duty work would be considered only when the employee submitted a doctor’s note specifying the employee’s limitations so the department head could determine whether a suitable light-duty accommodation was available.

As noted, the doctor’s note for the plaintiff in this case suggested the employer place him on part-time duty but didn’t recommend light-duty work. And the employer provided him with that part-time work.

The court held that the ADA didn’t entitle the disabled employee to his preferred accommodation. Rather, it entitled him to a reasonable accommodation — which he received when given part-time work. Also, allowing the employee to use paid leave could be considered an additional reasonable accommodation. Therefore, the court held that his claim had no merit.

Be forewarned

This case emphasizes that, as an employer, you’re obligated to provide a disabled employee with a reasonable accommodation — not one of his or her preference. Still, you must engage in an interactive process with the employee to determine what the reasonable accommodation would be, if any. Unfortunately, as this case also shows, even when an employer reasonably accommodates a disabled employee, it can still face a lawsuit claiming that more could have been done. 

To view all news stories, click here.