Workplace accommodations can be incredibly difficult to manage.  With time limits, non-responsive doctors (and their illegible handwriting), collective bargaining agreements, and umpteen additional variables that come into play, it’s a wonder that accommodations can ever get done.  However, it is important for employers to give their best efforts to make reasonable accommodations for employees so they can continue to work.

In LeBlanc v. McDonough, the plaintiff, an employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”), sued the Secretary of the VA after his requested accommodation was denied, and he was not hired for a different position after being reassigned to accommodate his restrictions.

LeBlanc, the plaintiff, was a police officer in the VA’s police department.  The department’s officers work 12-hour shifts, and rotate between day and night shifts every two weeks.  After six years of working under these conditions, LeBlanc was diagnosed with vestibular dysfunction, which caused dizziness and blurred vision.  He requested a work schedule with a stable pattern, as he believed his condition was exacerbated by his irregular hours.  His request was approved temporarily and he started to improve.

However, after a few months, the department became concerned that the work arrangement with LeBlanc was forcing the department to violate its collective bargaining agreement, which required equitable rotation of day/night shifts for employees.  They then provided LeBlanc with an alternative accommodation of reassignment to the position of transportation assistant.  After having his request for reconsideration denied, LeBlanc applied for two other positions: detective and training instructor.  He was not the highest scoring candidate for the detective position, but did receive the highest score on the training instructor rankings.  However, he was not hired for the training instructor position after a second round of interviews and poor feedback from his references.

LeBlanc sued after not being hired on the grounds that the VA failed to provide reasonable accommodation for him in his position as police officer, that it discriminated against him for failing to hire him as a training instructor, and that its decision not to hire him for the training instructor position was retaliatory.  The VA prevailed on its summary judgment motion, and LeBlanc appealed.

Regarding the allegation that the VA failed to accommodate LeBlanc’s restrictions, the court found LeBlanc’s requested accommodation of a stable shift would have imposed an undue hardship on the VA, because “those accommodations would have violated the VAPD’s collective bargaining agreement.”  Mind you, there was no mention of an unfavorable arbitration award, or even a grievance from the employee union regarding his months-long assignment to day shifts.  The court labeled the requested accommodation “presumptively unreasonable.”  The court found that he could not be accommodated in his current position, so reassignment constituted reasonable accommodation.

In response to his allegations that he was discriminated against and retaliated against with regard to the training instructor position, the court took the employer at its word that LeBlanc did not score as high as the other applicant, despite the fact that the chief changed the hiring process while it was still going on.  The court adhered to the established precedent that “showing that an interview process is ‘unusual’ is not sufficient to prove that an employer’s proffered reason is pretextual.”

The decision leads to a couple different conclusions.  First, the employer did a good job of documenting the reasons for its decisions, and that led to the granting of summary judgment against the plaintiff.  Second, the parties had a great judge who, despite the requirement that factual inferences are supposed to be made in favor of the plaintiff, found the employer took the necessary steps to both accommodate the employee in his current position and consider the employee for different positions within the agency.

We have seen cases like these go the other way many times in the past.  The necessity for excellent documentation throughout the accommodation process and a thorough interactive process are invaluable when you inevitably run into an employee who is unsatisfied with your efforts to accommodate their medical restrictions.  An experienced hand to guide you through the accommodation process may be necessary.  If you, or your organization, are in need of assistance working with employee accommodation requests, contact Wiley Reber Law, for accommodation experience that works.