The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held there was no failure to accommodate when an employee did not state that a requested change was connected to a medical condition. In Powley v. Rail Crew Xpress, LLC, 25 F.4th 610 (8th Cir. 2022), the plaintiff, Leah Powley (“Powley”), was hired in July 2015 as a driver for the defendant, Rail Crew Xpress, LLC (“RCX”), a transportation company that contracts with railroads to transport their crews. Within three years of her hiring, Powley requested six accommodations for various medical and familial reasons. With each request, she submitted a doctor’s note identifying potential disabilities, including headaches and back pain, along with doctor-recommended restrictions. RCX granted each requested accommodation. During this time, RCX even promoted Powley to the position of part-time dispatcher, referred to within the company as a “starter.” In this position Powley scheduled and coordinated drivers to move crews from one location to another.
After holding the position of starter for approximately 3 months, during which time RCX granted Powley multiple accommodations per doctor’s notes, Powley asked to return to her driver position informing one of her supervisors that the noise level in the office was interfering with her ability to perform her duties. She informed another supervisor that the noise gave her a headache. She also submitted a doctor’s note that stated only, “Patient may work 12 ½ hours per day. Must have 11 hrs between shifts.” 25 F.4th at 612. The company rejected the request, citing a policy that once an employee is promoted to a starter they cannot return to a driver position.
Thereafter, Powley reported to work and was upset that a dry-erase board tracking drivers and vehicles had been moved to a location that made it difficult for her to write on. She asked the other dispatchers to rearrange the space and when they told her to talk to a superior, she announced “I’m done. I have to leave.” 25 F.4th 612. The next day she emailed RCX stating she was unable to work as a starter because the office noise interfered with her ability to perform her duties. She also reiterated her frustration with the dry-erase board placement and again asked to return as a driver. Significantly, she did not mention back pain or headaches in the e-mail. RCX treated this as a resignation.
Powley sued RCX alleging that it failed to accommodate her disabilities and retaliated against her for requesting an accommodation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act. RCX moved for summary judgment (dismissal without a trial) and the trial court granted that motion, dismissing Powley’s claims. She appealed the ruling to the Eighth Circuit. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal, holding that Powley had not actually sought a reasonable accommodation for an alleged disability under the ADA.
The Eighth Circuit observed that under the ADA the initial burden to request an accommodation is on the employee. While the request does not need to be in writing and there are no necessary “magic words,” the employee must make it clear that he/she wants assistance for a disability. The Eighth Circuit stated, “where there is no conceivable request for an accommodation, there is no failure to accommodate.” 613 F.4th at 613. The Eighth Circuit found that Powley did not satisfy the burden for a failure to accommodate claim. In its opinion, the Eighth Circuit noted that Powley sought and received numerous reasonable accommodations for her back pain, observing that each of those requests were accompanied by a doctor’s note or some indication that the request was due to back pain. Her last request, however, neither attached a doctor’s note nor connected her request with back pain. Therefore, she did not show that request was based on an alleged disability.
This case illustrates the importance of the rationale an employee provides for a requested accommodation and documentation supporting such request. When the employee was able to provide a doctor’s note with the request for accommodation, the employer granted the accommodation. When she did not provide a doctor’s note or connect the request for accommodation to a medical condition that potentially qualified as a disability, the employer had no duty to provide an accommodation. Although it did not directly impact the decision, the employer’s history of providing accommodations when properly connected to potential disabilities likely helped the employer’s position on the disputed issue. Therefore, employers should carefully review requests to ensure they are for disabilities or alleged disabilities and treat such requests accordingly. If you have questions about when an employee must be accommodated for a condition, Heather Veik and E|S employment attorneys can be reached at 402-397-2200.