Lessons Learned: An Employer May Have to Accommodate a Disability That Does Not Impact an Employee’s Ability to Perform the Essential Functions of a Job

Follow us on LinkedIn to see future News.

Patricia Tsipras

April 3, 2024

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that Charter Communications, LLC a/k/a Spectrum, will pay $60,000 to resolve a lawsuit that alleged that Charter failed to accommodate an employee’s disability.  Specifically, the EEOC alleged that Charter violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when it refused to provide an ongoing schedule accommodation to a vision-impaired employee.

James Kimmons applied to work at a Charter call center that was approximately 36 miles, or a one-hour drive, from his home.  Kimmons was assigned to work a shift from 12:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.  He submitted an ADA accommodation request seeking to change his shift.  Though Kimmons could perform all of the essential functions of his job, “early cataracts” made driving at night difficult.  Charter granted Kimmons’s request for one month.  Kimmons sought a 30-day extension of the accommodation to explore the possibility of moving closer to the call center.  Charter denied the request, stating that assistance with Kimmons’s commute was not required under the ADA.  Kimmons filed a discrimination claim with the EEOC and the EEOC sued Charter on Kimmons’s behalf.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin dismissed Kimmons’s case, finding that the ADA does not require an employer to accommodate someone who can perform the essential functions of his job without the accommodation.

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.  The Seventh Circuit declined to adopt a bright-line rule that an employer never has a duty to reasonably accommodate under the ADA with respect to how employees with disabilities get to work.  The court reasoned that, “if a qualified employee’s disability interferes with his ability to get to work, the employee may be entitled to a work-schedule accommodation if commuting to work is a prerequisite to an essential job function, such as attendance in the workplace, and if the accommodation is reasonable under all the circumstances.”

Though the court recognized that employers usually bear no responsibility for helping a disabled employee commute to and from work, the court noted that factfinders should focus on the accommodation at issue because a temporary accommodation at work may enable an employee to remain on the job while making long-term changes, like moving closer to the worksite or moving within reach of public transit.

Ultimately, the Seventh Circuit remanded the case back to the district court.  In addition to its findings noted above, the court held that a factual dispute existed regarding whether Kimmons was disabled and that no analysis had been conducted regarding the reasonableness of Kimmons’s accommodation request or whether it posed an undue hardship to Charter.

The case is EEOC v. Charter Communications LLC, No. 2:18-cv-01333 (E.D. Wis.).

Employers:  Analyze accommodation requests on a case-by-case basis.  Employees may be entitled to an accommodation to their work schedule if commuting to work is a prerequisite to an essential job function.  And, if an accommodation request is reasonable, you may fare better if you grant it, even if not legally required.

*Special thanks to Ava Petrellese, our Paralegal, for her contributions to this article. 

This article is designed to provide one perspective regarding recent legal developments, and is not intended to serve as legal advice.  Always consult an attorney with specific legal issues.