Was the employee in Stephenson v. Pfizer, Inc. driven out of her job when her employer failed to accommodate her disability? The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of her employer on an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claim, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit had a different opinion. 

On the road

The employee was a pharmaceutical sales representative for 30 years. Her job required her to make in-person presentations about pharmaceutical products to physicians with the goal of convincing physicians to prescribe those products to their patients. She met with physicians at their offices and spent most of her working days traveling to and from those offices. It was estimated that, out of 10 working hours, she spent eight of them on the road. The employer provided the employee with a company car to drive to and from sales meetings. She didn’t maintain an office at her employer’s facility. 

At one point, the employee developed an eye condition and was unable to drive due to poor vision. She went on disability leave and then requested that her employer provide her with a driver, magnifying software for her computer and other magnifying tools. The employer agreed to the request for computer software and magnifying tools but denied the request for a driver.  

The employer maintained that the ability to drive was an essential function of the job that the employee had to perform personally. The employer didn’t discuss with the employee an accommodation that would enable her to meet with prospective customers. But it did direct her to other positions within the company that didn’t require traveling. 

The employee sued, alleging that the employer had violated the ADA by denying a reasonable accommodation that would have allowed her to continue her position as a sales representative. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer. It found that the ability to drive was an essential job function and that the defendant hadn’t violated the ADA because the plaintiff couldn’t drive with any accommodation. 

License to decide

The appellate court reversed the trial court’s ruling. For the plaintiff to succeed on a failure to accommodate claim, the plaintiff would have to establish that:

1. She had a disability,
2. Her employer had notice of the disability,
3. She could perform the essential functions of her job with a reasonable accommodation, and
4. Her employer failed to make an accommodation.  

If the employee established all four, the employer could still avoid liability if it could prove that the proposed accommodation was an undue hardship.  

There was no dispute that the first and second elements had been established by the employee. Analyzing the third element, the court focused on whether driving was an essential function of the job. In its analysis, the court considered the: 

• Employer’s judgment of the job’s essential functions, 
• Written job description, 
• Amount of time spent performing the function, 
• Consequences of not requiring the performance of that function,
• Terms of any collective bargaining agreement,
• Work experience of past employees with the same job, and
• Work experience of current employees with that job.  

It wasn’t clear from the record whether the ability to drive was an essential function of the job, because the job description didn’t specify anything about driving or possessing a driver’s license. For that reason, the appellate court found that summary judgment was improper and that there was a factual dispute for a jury to decide. 

Key to avoiding trouble

To avoid a similar outcome, employers should ensure that their job descriptions are detailed and list all essential functions of each position. That way, the description can help determine whether an accommodation is necessary — or even possible. 

© 2016