Case – Why accurate job descriptions are important
Regularly reviewing job descriptions is often thought of as a formidable task with limited benefit. The benefit, however, can be substantial, as one employer learned.
Case in point
Timethia’s pregnancy was complicated by nausea, severe vomiting, and excessive saliva. She used all 12 weeks of leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) during her pregnancy. She found, however, that she could prevent vomiting by spitting regularly and not swallowing saliva. Therefore, when she returned to work, she brought a cup with her to spit saliva into.
Company management told Timethia she could not use a spit cup if she wanted to continue working, citing sanitation and cleanliness requirements for its production area, where she performed no more than 20 percent of her job. The other 80 percent of her job was performed in the administrative area, where the use of a spit cup was not prohibited.
Fired and sued
Timethia stated she could still work and do her primarily clerical job, but the company did not offer or discuss any accommodations to retain her. As a result, she was terminated. In response, she sued, arguing that the company failed to provide an accommodation under state law, which uses the same framework as the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Under the ADA, an otherwise qualified individual is someone able to perform the essential functions of the employment position that the individual holds or seeks with or without reasonable accommodation. Often, those essential functions are included and called out as essential in a job description. Also worthy of consideration as to whether a function is essential is the amount of time spent performing the function, the consequences of not requiring the individual to perform the function, the experience of those who previously held the job, and the experience of those currently in similar jobs.
In court
In court, the employer argued that Timethia failed to prove that a reasonable accommodation would allow her to perform her job, given that part of it required time in the production area, and spitting was prohibited in that area. Timethia argued that, as a reasonable accommodation, she would be relieved of her (non-essential) production-area duties.
The ADA doesn’t require employers to change a job’s essential functions as a reasonable accommodation. But the court found that a reasonable jury could have found that being in the production area was not one of Timethia’s essential job functions, as it was not listed in the job description as an essential function. The production area duties also used a buddy system that involved sharing production-area duties.
The result
Therefore, opined the court in finding for Timethia, a reasonable accommodation included restructuring the position to exclude production-area duties.
The ADA also requires employers to engage in an interactive process to help determine reasonable accommodations once an accommodation has been requested. Instead of making an attempt to provide a reasonable accommodation, the company, instead, terminated Timethia.
Brown v. Advanced Concept Innovations, LLC, Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 21-11963, 10/27/22
Key takeaway: Keep your job descriptions accurate and up to date if you want to use them to defend an argument that a task is an essential function.
