Urging that Timely Attendance During Work Hours is an Essential Function of Employee’s Job
Massachusetts Health Research Institute (MHRI) terminated Ward, a data entry clerk, because he failed to arrive at work on time. MHRI maintained a "flex-time" schedule whereby employees could start work between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and leave after they had worked for seven and one half hours. Ward consistently did not arrive within this two-hour window, and was repeatedly warned that he was expected to arrive on time. Shortly before he was terminated, Ward told human resources that he had arthritis and asked if he could arrive after 9:00 a.m. on days when his condition was bothering him. He was told that he was expected to arrive between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. He was fired after he failed to do so. Ward claimed that MHRI violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to make a reasonable accommodation for his arthritis. The U.S. District Court in Massachusetts granted MHRI’s motion for summary judgment, holding that "requirements about work hours are not irrational or unreasonable." Ward appealed. On behalf of Associated Industries of Massachusetts, NELF filed an amicus brief in the First Circuit arguing that the District Court properly held that timely attendance was an essential function of Ward’s job which the employer was not required to forego as a reasonable accommodation to his claimed disability. The First Circuit reversed. Although the Court noted that "a regular and reliable schedule may be an essential function of most jobs," it remanded for a fact-intensive inquiry "into the pattern of the attendance problem and the characteristics of the job in question." The Court also declined "to hold that the flexible schedule Ward proposes," an open-ended schedule set by him on a daily basis, "is per se unreasonable." Accordingly, the Court directed MHRI to demonstrate on remand that it would be an undue hardship to afford Ward the schedule he desired.
Massachusetts Health Research Institute (MHRI) terminated Ward, a data entry clerk, because he failed to arrive at work on time. MHRI maintained a "flex-time" schedule whereby employees could start work between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and leave after they had worked for seven and one half hours. Ward consistently did not arrive within this two-hour window, and was repeatedly warned that he was expected to arrive on time. Shortly before he was terminated, Ward told human resources that he had arthritis and asked if he could arrive after 9:00 a.m. on days when his condition was bothering him. He was told that he was expected to arrive between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. He was fired after he failed to do so. Ward claimed that MHRI violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to make a reasonable accommodation for his arthritis. The U.S. District Court in Massachusetts granted MHRI’s motion for summary judgment, holding that "requirements about work hours are not irrational or unreasonable." Ward appealed. On behalf of Associated Industries of Massachusetts, NELF filed an amicus brief in the First Circuit arguing that the District Court properly held that timely attendance was an essential function of Ward’s job which the employer was not required to forego as a reasonable accommodation to his claimed disability. The First Circuit reversed. Although the Court noted that "a regular and reliable schedule may be an essential function of most jobs," it remanded for a fact-intensive inquiry "into the pattern of the attendance problem and the characteristics of the job in question." The Court also declined "to hold that the flexible schedule Ward proposes," an open-ended schedule set by him on a daily basis, "is per se unreasonable." Accordingly, the Court directed MHRI to demonstrate on remand that it would be an undue hardship to afford Ward the schedule he desired.
RSS Feed
