News - Tharpe & Howell - Litigation and Transaction Lawyers

Home > News > Employer Did Not Fail To Accommodate Employee On 7 Month Leave Of Absence

EMPLOYER DID NOT FAIL TO ACCOMMODATE EMPLOYEE ON 7 MONTH LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Rochelle Williams was a receptionist at Genentech. In addition to greeting visitors, answering the telephone, and distributing security badges, Ms. Williams was responsible for receiving “alerts” about persons that entered the employer’s premises to watch out for.

Approximately ten years after Ms. Williams started working for Genentech, she was counseled for improperly handling an “alert” that she had received. After the counseling, Ms. Williams began crying uncontrollably and hyperventilating and was taken to the hospital emergency room. She began a medical leave of absence that day and was diagnosed with job-related stress.

Ms. Williams’ leave was extended several times and she was released to return to work approximately seven months later. During Ms. Williams leave of absence her position was filled.

Genentech’s family and medical leave policy provided for six months of paid medical leave. Employees that returned to work within 12 weeks would be placed in the same or equivalent position upon their return. If an employee’s position was filled during the leave, the employee would have 60 days to locate another position. If another position could not be located, employment was terminated.

After Ms. Williams was released to return to work she attempted to locate another position with the company. However, she was not successful and at the conclusion of 60 days, her employment was terminated. In response, Ms. Williams filed a lawsuit claiming she was discriminated on the basis of her race and disability and that Genentech failed to accommodate her disability or engage in the interactive process.

In order to establish disability discrimination, Ms. Williams had the burden of establishing, among other things, that she was capable of performing the essential functions of her position. The Court noted that it was not possible for Ms. Williams to meet this evidentiary burden because approximately 12 weeks after her leave of absence when Genentech decided to fill plaintiff’s position, her treating physician extended her medical leave and noted that she was “totally incapacitated” and unable to work. Therefore, at the time Ms. Williams’ position was filled, she could not demonstrate that she was able to perform the essential functions of her position.

The Court also noted that the plaintiff failed to offer any evidence to establish that at the time the decision to fill Ms. Williams’ position was made that she could have returned to her position with a reasonable accommodation.

With regard to the failure to accommodate claim, Ms. Williams asserted three different acts that she claimed gave rise to liability: (1) Genentech refused to grant her request to return to work under a different manager; (2) Genentech did not hold her position open until she was released to return to work; and (3) Genentech failed to place her in a vacant position upon her return.

Returning To Work Under A Different Manager:

While on leave, Ms. Williams requested to return to work under a different manager. The Court noted that in responding to an accommodation request, an employer is not required to choose the best accommodation or the accommodation that the employee seeks. Rather, an employer can choose the accommodation that is the least expensive or easier for it to provide. Assuming that Ms. Williams was asking to return to work at that time, there was no evidence that she was ready to return or that continuing her medical leave was not an effective reasonable accommodation. Because Ms. Williams’ medical leave had been extended several times, and she did not present any evidence that granting her medical leave was not a reasonable or effective accommodation, her claim failed.

Holding Ms. Williams’ Position Open:

Genentech’s leave policy stated that if leave extended beyond 12 weeks, it would not guarantee that a position would be available for the employee. At the time Genentech filled Ms. Williams’ position, her leave had been extended several times and the company was concerned that she may never return to work. Based on these facts, the company’s decision to fill her position was held to be reasonable.

Placing Ms. Williams In An Open Position Upon Her Return:

Genentech was only obligated to assign Ms. Williams to an existing, vacant position for which she was qualified. No such positions were available upon her return and therefore, her termination was justified.

http://

Related Attorney(s):
David S. Binder

Related Practice Area(s):
Employment and Labor Law