Harold Smith is a teacher who worked for the Shelby County Board of Education (SCBE) public school system for 27 years. In early March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in SCBE transitioning to virtual instruction. Shortly before the 2020-2021 school year, Smith took leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to undergo heart and kidney transplant surgeries.
About six months later, Smith’s medical providers released him to return to work. The letter explained that working virtually would be the safest option given his immunosuppressed status, but SCBE should discuss with his doctor and Smith whether he would be required to return to work in person. The letter included precautions if required to be in the presence of others, including wearing a mask and social distancing.
Smith worked remotely in accordance with the SCBE’s policy for all teachers at the time. Within a month of his return to work, however, the SCBE informed employees and students that in-person instruction would resume on March 1, 2021. Smith requested to continue remote teaching due to his health status, and provided a second letter from his providers, which “recommended” and “requested” work from home until July 2021.
In response, the School provided two on-site accommodation options as well as offering a possible leave of absence. The on-site accommodations would have permitted remote teaching from either Smith’s classroom or the gymnasium, while the students were in a nearby computer lab with an educational assistant present. Smith rejected these options and requested working from home. The School reiterated that it was unable to grant his requested accommodation and instructed Smith to follow SCBE’s sick leave protocols if he was unable to report in-person. Smith did not respond and did not follow these protocols. Eventually, SCBE suspended Smith and Smith never returned to work, eventually resigning.
Smith filed suit, alleging discrimination based on a failure to accommodate his disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The SCBE moved for summary judgment, arguing in part that in-person attendance was an essential function of Smith’s job and that he failed to engage in the interactive process when he rejected the SCBE’s reasonable accommodations and cut off communications. The trial court determined that Smith failed to engage in the interactive process. Smith appealed.
On appeal, Smith argued that: (1) the SCBE’s proposed accommodations were unreasonable and (2) he fulfilled his responsibility to engage in the interactive process and satisfied his burden of proposing a reasonable accommodation.
To establish a failure to accommodate claim, an employee must show: (1) he is an individual with a disability, and (2) he is otherwise qualified for his job, by demonstrating he can perform the essential functions of the job, with or without a reasonable accommodation. Entitlement to relief also requires good faith engagement in the interactive process. The Court of Appeals noted that when there is more than one reasonable accommodation, the choice of accommodation is the employer’s.
Here, the SCBE responded to Smith’s request with alternatives to his proposed accommodation, which took into consideration the risks communicated by Smith’s doctors. Even though Smith’s proposed accommodation may have been reasonable, Smith was obligated to continue on with the interactive process. To this end, the Court of Appeals found that Smith withdrew from the interactive process. The School had multiple communications with Smith—they attempted to follow up with proposals that Smith made, and continued to explore options even after Smith’s suspension. When an individual rejects an employer’s reasonable accommodation, the Court of Appeals noted that the individual is no longer considered a “qualified individual with a disability” under the ADA.
The Court of Appeals also considered the SCBE’s decision to reject Smith’s proposed accommodations. The SCBE explained that remote environments decrease student learning and the ability to conduct effective supervision. Smith even agreed that virtual instruction was not in his student’s best interests and working virtually hindered his ability to perform hands-on work. Smith failed to show that the SCBE’s proposed accommodations were inadequate. For example, the letters from Smith’s medical team never stated that he was required to work from home or that he have complete isolation from others. These questions may have been resolved if Smith continued to communicate with the SCBE, however, Smith’s failure to work with the SCBE resulted in a breakdown in the interactive process.
The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s ruling.
Note: Remote work is a commonly requested reasonable accommodation, and for some positions, it may be reasonable. In this case, the school district had legitimate concerns about allowing a teacher to teach virtually, offered alternative accommodations that would have addressed the teacher’s functional limitations, and continued to engage in the process in good faith, even after the employee stopped responding.
Smith v. Shelby Cnty. Bd. of Educ. (6th Cir. 2024) 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 19388.