Summary
The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for SSRG II, LLC in Tawna Bowles’s claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Kentucky Civil Rights Act. The court held that Bowles’s requested accommodation—sitting for five minutes after every ten minutes of standing—was objectively unreasonable because it would eliminate or reallocate essential functions of the cashier/service-team member position. The court also held that her interactive-process claim failed because it depended on a viable reasonable-accommodation claim.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Bowles's requested accommodation of sitting for five minutes after every ten minutes of standing was objectively reasonable under the ADA and Kentucky Civil Rights Act.
- Whether the district court properly resolved the reasonableness of the proposed accommodation as a matter of law at summary judgment.
- Whether Bowles could maintain an independent ADA interactive-process claim when she had not established a prima facie failure-to-accommodate claim based on a reasonable accommodation.
Holdings
- Bowles's request to sit for five minutes after every ten minutes of standing was facially and objectively unreasonable as a matter of law because it would eliminate or substantially interfere with essential functions of the cashier/service-team member position, including multitasking and mobility.
- The court could determine as a matter of law that the accommodation was facially unreasonable at summary judgment because there were no material evidentiary disputes concerning the position's essential functions or the nature of Bowles's requested accommodation.
- Bowles's interactive-process claim necessarily failed because a failure to engage in the interactive process is independently actionable only when the plaintiff establishes a prima facie failure-to-accommodate claim involving a reasonable accommodation.
Key quotations
“As part of this effort, Bowles must demonstrate that her proposed accommodation ... allows her to perform the essential functions of the job sought.” (5)
“With that understanding in mind, it bears repeating that requiring a duration of five minutes of sitting after standing for ten is what makes Bowles’s request facially unreasonable.” (9)
“But a viable interactive-process claim presupposes the existence of a reasonable accommodation.” (11)
Factual background
SSRG II hired Tawna Bowles for a cashier/service-team position at a fast-casual Chicken Salad Chick restaurant. Bowles has knee arthritis and requested an accommodation allowing her to sit for five minutes after every ten minutes of standing. The position required multitasking, mobility, food expediting, restocking, cleaning, and other front-of-house duties that could arise at any moment. SSRG II declined the specific request and did not provide a position permitting continual sitting.
Procedural history
Bowles sued SSRG II after the company declined her request to sit for five minutes after every ten minutes of standing and allegedly failed to engage adequately in the ADA interactive process. Following discovery, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky granted summary judgment to SSRG II. Bowles timely appealed, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.