Humphrey v. Memorial Hospitals Association (Summary)

ADA

Humphrey v. Memorial Hospitals Association,  No. 98-15404 ( 9th Cir. Feb. 13, 2001)

After three years of working for a hospital, a medical transcriptionist began having difficulty arriving for work at her scheduled time, or sometimes at all. Her excessive tardiness and absences were linked to a “series of obsessive rituals” that included a compelling need to rinse her hair for extended periods of time and repeatedly return to the shower if her hair did not “feel right.” Additionally, she felt a compulsion to check and recheck papers and pull out her hair for close inspection due to the feeling that “something was crawling on her scalp.” Tardiness and absenteeism due to these obsessive rituals resulted in the hospital beginning disciplinary action.

As the disciplinary action progressed, the employee was required to keep regular appointments with the Employee Assistance Program (EAP). These appointments resulted in a request by the employee for a psychiatric evaluation, which led to the diagnosis of obsessive-compulsive disorder. In a letter from the diagnosing psychiatrist, the psychiatrist indicated that the employee’s
OCD was “directly contributing to her problems with lateness.”

In an attempt to accommodate the employee while she sought continued treatment for her OCD, it was suggested that the employee have a “flexible start-time arrangement,” that allowed her to begin work at any time within a 24-hour period on the days she was scheduled to work. Despite this accommodation, the employee’s tardiness and absenteeism continued. Several months into the arrangement, the employee requested consideration for an alternative, work from home, accommodation. While the hospital allowed other transcriptionists to work from home, the employee’s request was denied due to her current involvement with disciplinary action. While the employee’s evaluations continued to show that her productivity and work skills were excellent when she was able to arrive at work, the attendance problems continued.

Approximately one month after the work from home request, the employee was fired for continued attendance problems. After learning of her termination, the employee requested a leave of absence in lieu of termination, but was told “that she had had her chance at accommodation.”

The employee sued the hospital, alleging it had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the hospital, finding that the hospital had satisfied its duty of reasonable accommodation under the ADA. The district court found the fact that the employee initially refused a leave of absence and then failed to request one until after her termination was dispositive as to the reasonable accommodation issue. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed which made summary judgment inappropriate and that the hospital had failed to satisfy its affirmative duty under the ADA to explore alternative arrangements that could provide reasonable accommodation for the employee’s disability.