Working with employees returning from injury with specific restrictions can be quite difficult. Not only do you need to understand exactly what the employee is restricted from doing, you need to understand the nature and duration of the tasks normally performed. This is why it is important for your accommodations personnel to work directly with people who are intimately familiar with the position. In Goosen v. Minn. Dep’t of Transp., the hard work of accommodations staff proved to be critical in defending against an employee’s claim of discrimination.
In that case, the plaintiff was working as a heavy equipment mechanic when he was injured on the job in June 2018. He went through four separate surgeries in effort to return to full working condition, but in 2021, he was deemed to have reached maximum medical improvement by his healthcare provider. He was returned to work, but he was restricted from extending his arms, reaching overhead, and climbing in and out of trucks for several hours a day.
In response, MNDOT organized a “Work Analysis Team” to evaluate whether they could reasonably accommodate the plaintiff. The team included 14 members, including staff from human resources, an ADA coordinator, two supervisors, a member of the office of equity and diversity, and representatives from the safety and worker’s compensation program. The group met to identify essential functions of the position and what accommodations they could provide. After meeting nine times, the group determined that Goosen could not perform the essential functions of the job, even with reasonable accommodation.
After its decision, the team provided its findings to Goosen, and met with him so he could provide feedback and any of his own ideas for accommodation. During the meeting, he did not contest the findings, but stated he believed that stretch breaks would be enough for him to perform the essential functions of his position. The team took a week to reassess, but ultimately decided he could not be accommodated, and considered him to have voluntarily resigned.
In reviewing Goosen’s failure to accommodate claim following summary judgment in favor of MNDOT, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals yielded to the employer’s determinations as to essential functions, based on the Work Analysis Team’s assessment, the job descriptions, and their determinations of the amount of time spent on the job performing the functions. The court did not give credence to the argument that Goosen’s preemployment testing did not include him keeping his arms outstretched over his head or climbing in and out of equipment. Despite Goosen’s arguments that he never had to perform such extensive or frequent activities in his time as a mechanic, the court stated “a plaintiff’s subjective experience has little weight in our analysis of a job’s essential functions.”
Having dispelled the remainder of the plaintiff’s arguments, the court affirmed the decision of the lower court in granting summary judgment.
We know, not every employer will have a team of 14 employees with the time or resources to evaluate a position and employee restrictions in such a thorough manner. However, this case shows that if enough time is taken to critically evaluate an accommodation situation, and sufficient documentation is provided, an employer can defend its employment decisions in court. Workplace accommodation can be difficult, and it’s important to have a knowledgeable team on your side. If you, or your organization need assistance with workplace accommodations, contact Wiley Reber Law, for accommodations advice that works.