In Casteel v. Charter Communications, Inc., No. C13-5520 RJB (W.D. Wash. Oct. 23, 2014), a federal judge in Western Washington denied an employer’s motion for summary judgment on a failure-to-accommodate claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act despite the undisputed fact that the employee has been unable to work since July 2009.

Multiple Leave Requests Lead to Eventual Termination Under Maximum Leave Policy

Here are the relevant facts and background on Casteel.

Charter hired Mary Casteel in September 2007.  In November 2008, she fell ill and was diagnosed with fibromyalgia.  She requested and was granted intermittent leave under the FMLA.  In April 2009, she requested seven consecutive days of leave and also requested that she not be required to work overtime.  Charter granted both requests.  In July 2009, Casteel was diagnosed with a form of cancer that is usually treatable with chemotherapy.  She requested a medical leave from July 14 to August 15 to undergo treatment.  Her doctor certified that her anticipated return-to-work date was August 15.  Because Casteel’s FMLA leave would be exhausted in July, Charter granted her a 30-day personal leave through August 14.  On August 15, Casteel was not able to return to work.  Her doctor reported that she was still undergoing treatment and would be able to return to work on September 15, 2009.  Charter granted her an additional personal leave to September 19, 2009.  On September 14th, however, her doctor provided a note saying that she was still in treatment and would be able to return to work on February 4, 2010. 

In early October 2009, Charter’s HR manager contacted Casteel to ask if any accommodation could be provided to her to allow her to return to work earlier.  Casteel said no and, as her doctor had reported, that she would not be able to return to work until February 4, 2010.  Because the company’s policy was not to grant more than two 30-day leaves in a twelve-month period, Charter terminated Casteel’s employment without further inquiry.  

Just prior to her termination, Casteel was awarded long-term disability benefits under Charter’s plan and was later awarded Social Security disability benefits.  Her Social Security determination was based on the fact that in late September 2009 she had also been diagnosed with a mood disorder that rendered her incapable of functioning in a work environment for at least twelve months.

Indefinite Leave is Not a Reasonable Accommodation, But… 

Casteel sued, alleging that Charter violated the ADA by not granting her additional unpaid leave as a reasonable accommodation.  By the time the matter reached court, Casteel’s health had not improved and it was undisputed that she had not been able to work at any time after July 2009.  In fact, she had not yet been released to return to work, nor had she sought work since July 2009.   Based on those facts, Charter moved for summary judgment on Casteel’s ADA claim.  Charter argued that the only accommodation that existed was an “indefinite” leave, which is unreasonable as a matter of law.  The court denied Charter’s motion.  The court focused on the facts that Charter knew at the time of termination—not the information it learned later and the events that happened later. 

The information that Charter knew in early October was that Casteel’s doctor said that she would be able to return on February 4, 2010, and that an accommodation existed—extending her unpaid leave—which would have allowed Casteel to return to work. 

The court pointed out that Charter did not attempt to clarify whether the February 2010 return date was incorrect or speculative.  The court ruled that Charter could not simply rely on its maximum leave policy to terminate employment without considering whether a reasonable accommodation would be appropriate.  Because there was a dispute concerning whether granting additional leave would have been a reasonable accommodation, the court refused to dismiss Casteel’s claim as a matter of law.  In addition, the court noted that if an additional leave would have been a reasonable accommodation, the ADA places the burden on Charter to show that an accommodation would be an undue hardship.  There was no such showing in this case.  

In the end, the court concluded that “[q]uestions of fact remain as to whether Casteel was a ‘qualified individual,’ whether she could have performed the essential functions of [her former job] (or another position for which she was otherwise qualified at Charter) with the accommodation of a medical leave of absence, whether that accommodation would have been reasonable, and whether it would have posed an undue hardship on Charter.”

Employers Beware When Applying Maximum Leave Policy

Although the court did not question the doctrine that an indefinite leave is not a reasonable accommodation, this decision illustrates the danger of inflexibly applying a maximum leave policy without conducting an individualized analysis to determine whether additional leave would be a reasonable accommodation.

It also emphasizes the significant burden an employer has to show that accommodation of an employee’s leave would be an undue hardship, even in cases in which an employee is not able to work at all for an extended period.  Prior to terminating employment in such circumstances, employers may want to document the hardship the company would suffer by granting such an extended leave.

© 2014 Perkins Coie LLP