Corporate Services, Inc.
208 Kishwaukee St. · Rockford, IL 61104
(p) (815) 962-8367 · (f) (815) 962-0940

This Is How You Reasonably Accommodate a Disabled Employee


A recent case out of the Ninth Circuit (Nev., et al) takes a look at the brighter side when an employer handles a tricky issue correctly within the confines of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The April 26, 2018, case (Jablonski v. WalMart) concerns an issue that often confounds employers and presents many opportunities for mistakes that lead to difficult lawsuits — the sick or injured employee who needs repeated reasonable accommodations.

Lidia Jablonski worked as a supervisor in the dairy, frozen and meat departments of a Las Vegas WalMart. She took 12 weeks of FMLA following a workplace injury suffered from a falling box of frozen chicken.

Here is how WalMart accommodated Jablonski's injury following her FMLA leave:

  • Near the end of her leave, WalMart reached out to Jablonski to see if she needed an additional leave of absence, which it granted upon her request.
  • When that leave expired, Jablonski's doctor certified her to return to work under certain temporary restrictions. Accordingly, WalMart offered, and Jablonski accepted, a 90-day temporary cashier position under WalMart's Temporary Alternate Duty (TAD) program.
  • Ultimately, Jablonski's doctor released her to permanent light-duty restrictions. Two supervisors met with her and offered the only vacant position at the store at the time that fit her restrictions: a part-time cashier.
  • Jablonski declined the offer, stating that she could only accept a full-time cashier position. Since there was no such position available, WalMart considered her "voluntarily terminated."

Jablonski sued, and lost. And appealed, and lost.

As noted by the court of appeals:

WalMart officials corresponded with her about her leave, granted multiple leave requests, and spoke to her about her future position. WalMart offered Jablonski several accommodations: personal leave when she ran out of FMLA leave, a ninety-day TAD position that accommodated her medical restrictions, and eventually a permanent cashier position — which she rejected. Jablonski argues that WalMart should have transferred her to another store. But she did not ask to be transferred at the time, and she has not presented any evidence that there were vacant positions for which she was qualified at other stores.

The lessons?

  • When you can demonstrate a documented history of accommodating an employee's disability, you make it that much more difficult for the employee to establish discriminatory animus, even if you later deny an accommodation request or even terminate the employee.
  • The ADA does not require employers to be mind readers. If an employee does not request a certain accommodation as part of the interactive process, an employer is not obligated to offer it. Thus, even though Jablonski later complained that WalMart did not offer her a full-time cashier position at a different store, she also did not ask for a transfer to an open position.
  • The ADA also does not require employers to create positions that do not exist as accommodations. It only requires transfers to open and available positions for which an employee is qualified. Thus, WalMart had no obligation to create for Jablonski a full-time cashier position within her store. Because the only open and available position was part-time, WalMart met its obligation.

Next time you are faced with the difficult situation of a disabled employee who needs repeated accommodations, think of WalMart and this case, and ask, have we done all that we could have done for this employee, or is there more we can do? How you answer this question will tell you if you have best positioned yourself to defend a discrimination or reasonable accommodation lawsuit.

Posted In: Reasonable Accommodation; Safety / Workplace Injury; Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA); Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

Want to know more? Read the full article by at Workforce Management

More News from Corporate Services, Inc.

OSH Act Penalties Increase

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has published a final rule that increases civil monetary penalties the DOL assesses and enforces, as required by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 and the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015.more