Summary
The Fourth Circuit held that the ADA does not require an employer to create a new part-time job-share position as a reasonable accommodation for a disabled employee. Because the job-share position did not exist at the time it was proposed—it required managerial approval to create—the employer had no duty to split an existing full-time role into two part-time positions. The court also affirmed that a failure-to-engage-in-interactive-process claim fails when the employee cannot demonstrate the existence of a reasonable accommodation. **Key Topics:** ADA reasonable accommodation; creation of new position; job sharing; part-time work; interactive process.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether job sharing a single full-time position with a willing partner qualifies as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.
- Whether Sanofi's failure to engage in the interactive process is separately actionable when no reasonable accommodation exists.
Holdings
- If the job share in question did not exist at the time it was proposed as an accommodation, the ADA does not require the employer to create the new position to accommodate a disabled employee.
- An employer will not be liable for failure to engage in the interactive process if the employee ultimately fails to demonstrate the existence of a reasonable accommodation.
Key quotations
“We must decide whether 'job sharing' a single full-time position with a willing partner qualifies as a reasonable accommodation that an employer must provide under the Americans with Disabilities Act ('ADA'). It does not.” (at 2)
“If the job share in question did not exist at the time it was proposed as an accommodation, the ADA does not require the employer to create the new position to accommodate a disabled employee.” (at 13)
“The ADA does not require employers to create new positions to accommodate their employees with disabilities.” (at 13)
“We hold today that a part-time job-share position that requires managerial approval to create is not a reasonable accommodation in the ordinary run of cases because the ADA does not require companies to create new positions to accommodate their employees with disabilities.” (at 14)
Factual background
Janet Perdue worked as a pharmaceutical sales representative for Sanofi. After being diagnosed with an autoimmune disease, she had medical restrictions limiting travel and work hours. She proposed a job-sharing arrangement with another employee in the Greenville territory, which required manager approval. Sanofi denied the job share, citing business concerns, and eventually terminated her employment after short-term disability benefits ran out.
Procedural history
Perdue sued Sanofi in federal district court alleging violations of the ADA and wrongful discharge under North Carolina law. Sanofi moved for summary judgment, and Perdue moved for partial summary judgment. The district court granted Sanofi's motion and denied Perdue's. Perdue timely appealed.