Alaska Employment Law

In EEOC v. Convergys Customer Management Group, Inc., the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the employer’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, after a jury awarded a disabled employee back wages and other compensatory damages of approximately $115,000. The employee was fired for being late too many times, due to the fact that the employer did not furnish sufficient disabled parking that would allow him to park and arrive at work on time. The employer alleged the court erred in not instructing the jury that the employee had to make a more specific, reasonable request for an accommodation; also that the accommodations requested were unreasonable.

In denying the employer’s appeal, the appeals court discussed the interactive process and noted a shared responsibility between the employer and the employee to resolve accommodation requests. The employee must make the employer aware of the need for an accommodation, and provide relevant details about the disability, and, if not obvious, the need for accommodation. Once it becomes aware of the legitimate need, the employer must make a reasonable effort to determine the appropriate accommodation. It must analyze the job, the specific limitations of the employee, and consult with the individual regarding potential effective accommodations. This shared responsibility between the employer and employee is logical for the interactive process, because the employee has more information about the disability and limitations, while the employer has more information about alternative duties or positions available to the disabled employee. The court also noted the employee’s responsibility to provide sufficient information about the disability to allow the employer to fashion an appropriate remedy, including updating medical information and evaluations if requested. Here, the district court did not err when it failed to instruct the jury that the employee must request a specific, reasonable accommodation; in fact, the appeals court noted that the employee did more than was necessary by suggesting various accommodations.

On the issue of whether the accommodation request was reasonable, the company argued that any accommodation to allow the employee more time to find parking and return from lunch eliminated its essential punctuality requirement. The court noted that while there was no precise test for a reasonable accommodation, it is unreasonable if it requires the employer to eliminate an essential function; it is a jury question as to whether the accommodation is unreasonable or not. Here, the district court determined that punctuality was an essential function of the job, and the jury decided the employee’s request for an extra 15 minutes to return from lunch was reasonable. (The evidence showed that had the accommodation been granted, all but three of his tardies would have been eliminated.) There was no evidence that giving the employee the extra time would eliminate its punctuality requirement entirely; rather, this employee simply had a different return time.

Emotional distress damages of $100,000 were upheld, because the jury reasonably could find that the employer did not engage in the interactive process in good faith, and the amount of the award was not so grossly excessive as to shock the conscience. The undisputed evidence showed the employee suffered depression and anxiety due to the discharge; he became isolated, ashamed, and gained a significant amount of weight.

The full case can be found here.