Tag Archive for: Disability

Can Your Employer Require You to Return to the Office?

/in , ,

Many employers have begun requiring employees who worked remotely during the pandemic to return to the office. In general, employers have broad authority to decide where work is performed and may adopt return-to-office policies.

However, the analysis can change when an employee has a medical condition or disability that affects their ability to work on site. Both federal law and the Minnesota Human Rights Act require employers to consider reasonable accommodations in certain circumstances. See Minn. Stat. § 363A.08.

In some situations, remote work may qualify as a reasonable accommodation. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) explains that working from home can be appropriate where an employee’s disability limits their ability to work in the workplace and the job’s essential functions can be performed remotely. Employers are generally expected to engage in an interactive process to evaluate accommodation requests rather than simply deny them.

Whether remote work is reasonable often depends on the employee’s job duties and the employer’s operations. Questions such as whether the employee previously worked remotely, whether in-person tasks are truly required, and whether remote work would create undue hardship for the employer may all be relevant.

For employees facing a return-to-office mandate, the key issue is often not whether the employer can adopt the policy, but how the employer responds when an employee requests an accommodation under disability law. If you have questions about returning to work, contact our firm today.

What is a reasonable accommodation for a disability and how can I request it from my employer?

/in

Working with a disability does not have to be stressful. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) prohibit employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities. A qualified individual with a disability is someone who fulfills what the position is requiring of an applicant, for example: skill set, experience, education, and any other job-related requirement. It is someone who can perform the basic duties the position entails either with or without reasonable accommodation/s.

All government agencies, and most employers, are required by law to provide reasonable accommodations to both qualified applicants and employees. The only time they would be unable to provide reasonable accommodation is if doing so would pose a direct threat or cause an undue hardship. Otherwise, employers must provide reasonable accommodations (adjustment or alteration), to provide applicants/employees an equal opportunity to compete for a job, equal access to benefits and privileges of employment, and/or to be able to perform the essential functions of the job.

Reasonable accommodations may look like the following:

  • Moving to a different office space;
  • Granting breaks or providing leave;
  • Providing accessible parking;
  • Providing telework or working remotely (including working from home);
  • Providing materials in alternative formats like large print or Braille; or
  • Changing when or how job duties are performed.

Under state and federal laws, individuals with disabilities have a right to request reasonable accommodations that will allow individuals to perform all the essential functions of the job. A job should not have to be burdensome to an individual with disabilities and reasonable accommodations should be request if needed. An employer is not allowed to retaliate against an employee who asks for reasonable accommodation, or who receives an accommodation.

If you feel you have experienced discrimination or retaliation at work related to your disability, our attorneys at Kitzer Rochel are here to help. We advocate on behalf of employees facing discrimination, retaliation, and whistleblower issues in the workplace.

Kitzer Rochel, PLLP Defeats Summary Judgment in MHRA Disability Claims

/in , , ,

In Oliver v. MCTC, Kitzer Rochel attorney Brian Rochel, along with co-counsel Michelle Dye Neumann, successfully argued against the employer’s motion to dismiss Ms. Oliver’s Minnesota Human Rights Act claims. Ms. Oliver suffered a disabling injury at work and alleged that she was terminated because of her disability, and because she requested reasonable accommodation for her disability. The Minnesota District Court denied the motion, ruling that a jury could find in Ms. Oliver’s favor on her claims. The case will now proceed to a jury trial.

The court’s opinion is important because it held that Karst v. F.C. Hayer Co, 447 N.W.2d 180 (Minn. 1989), a case long used by employers to fend off liability for disability discrimination, did not apply to Ms. Oliver’s claims. In doing so, the court narrowed the application of Karst and called into question whether it is still good law.

Teske Katz Kitzer & Rochel Defeats Pretrial Motion to Dismiss, Court Limits Karst Ruling

/in , , ,

In Jason Lindner v. Donatelli Bros. of White Bear Lake d/b/a Donatelli’s, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff Lindner’s retaliation claim. In an important opinion of first impression, the court held that Karst v. F.C. Hayer Co, 447 N.W.2d 180 (Minn. 1989), which bars discrimination claims in certain cases, does not apply to retaliation or reprisal claims.  The court noted that “a reprisal claim is fundamentally different [than a disability claim] – such a claim is predicated not on an employer’s injury (or disability), but rather on his or her conduct.” Lindner’s claims will now proceed to trial before a federal jury.

Phillip Kitzer and Brian Rochel represent Plaintiff Jason Lindner in the employment retaliation and discrimination lawsuit.

Kitzer & Rochel Defeat Summary Judgment in Federal Court

/in , ,

In Jason Lindner v. Donatelli Bros. of White Bear Lake d/b/a Donatelli’s, Brian Rochel and Phillip Kitzer defeated summary judgment in U.S. District Court. Lindner’s claims involved FMLA interference and retaliation as well as for seeking time off from work related to his disability. After 18 years of employment, Jason Lindner was fired while on FMLA leave stemming from a recently-developed respiratory airway disease (RADs).  The person who decided to terminate Lindner, Trish Appleby, testified that she relied on video footage to disprove that Lindner fell in the parking lot, justifying her decision to terminate him for falsifying a workers’ compensation claim.

The Court held that summary judgment was not appropriate because there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find that Donatelli’s proffered reasons for termination were pretext for retaliation. First, Appleby admitted she was skeptical of the injury even though Lindner’s account of the fall was “pretty much the same” to the account he gave her.  Second, the Court stated that the video was unclear and could reasonably discredit Appleby’s “adamant testimony” that she could “clearly” tell from the tape that he did not fall.  Likewise, Appleby adamantly claimed that Lindner’s doctor’s note did not contain “one objective” indication of injury, yet the doctor’s note did contain indications that Lindner was injured. Third, the Court found that the timing of Appleby’s investigation into the alleged fall could be considered suspicious.  Appleby did not take it upon herself to investigate the injury until after Lindner suffered the RADs injury and requested time off from work.  Fourth, Appleby testified that Lindner’s previous requests for time off constituted “performance problems” that could have led to his termination.  Finally, Appleby did not provide Lindner the same opportunities to remedy alleged behavioral problems that it provided other employees, even those who committed offenses she considered “flagrant.” The Court held, “This evidence of hostility combined with the timing of his termination and the shaky foundation of her professed belief could lead a reasonable jury to discredit Appleby and conclude her decision was in fact motivated by Lindner’s medical leave.”

Likewise, the Court denied Donatelli’s summary judgment motion on Lindner’s FMLA entitlement claim.  Although Donatelli’s argued that Lindner “never” made an FMLA request, the Court found that the argument is “clearly contradicted by the record.” Lindner submitted a complete FMLA request for the day before he was terminated, and Donatelli’s was “clearly on notice of his potential need for FMLA leave because Appleby raised the issue with him and sent him FMLA paperwork, which stated he was eligible for leave[]”. Accordingly, the Court held that Lindner’s FMLA entitlement claim could proceed to jury trial along with his retaliation claim under state and federal law.

The full opinion, issued by U.S. Judge Richard J. Kyle, is available here.