Refusal to Grant Further Medical Leave Did Not Violate Rehabilitation Act: Tenth Circuit | Practical Law

Refusal to Grant Further Medical Leave Did Not Violate Rehabilitation Act: Tenth Circuit | Practical Law

In Hwang v. Kansas State University, the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissed the plaintiff's discrimination and retaliation claims under the Rehabilitation Act, holding that the university's inflexible leave policy did not violate the Act and was not inherently discriminatory, and that the university lawfully denied her request for an additional six months of leave because it was not a reasonable accommodation.

Refusal to Grant Further Medical Leave Did Not Violate Rehabilitation Act: Tenth Circuit

by Practical Law Labor & Employment
Published on 04 Jun 2014 • USA (National/Federal)
In Hwang v. Kansas State University, the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissed the plaintiff's discrimination and retaliation claims under the Rehabilitation Act, holding that the university's inflexible leave policy did not violate the Act and was not inherently discriminatory, and that the university lawfully denied her request for an additional six months of leave because it was not a reasonable accommodation.
On May 29, 2014, in Hwang v. Kansas State University, the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissed the plaintiff's discrimination and retaliation claims under the Rehabilitation Act, holding that the university's inflexible leave policy did not violate the Act and was not inherently discriminatory, and that the university lawfully denied her request for an additional six months of leave because it was not a reasonable accommodation (No. 13–3070, (10th Cir. May 29, 2014)).

Background

The plaintiff was an assistant professor at Kansas State University who signed a one-year contract to teach classes over three academic terms. Before the fall term began, she learned that she had cancer. The university granted her request for a six-month paid leave of absence to get treatment, but after six months of leave her doctor advised her to seek more time off. She made a request for an additional six months of leave, but the university denied her request, claiming that its inflexible leave policy allowed for no more than six months of sick leave.
The plaintiff filed suit in district court alleging that the university discriminated and retaliated against her in violation of the Rehabilitation Act by refusing to provide her with more than six months' sick leave. The district court dismissed her complaint, and the plaintiff appealed to the Tenth Circuit.

Outcome

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. The court held that the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie claim of discrimination, noting that:
  • She did not show that she was able to perform the essential functions of her job because:
    • she admitted that she could not work at any point or in any manner for a period that lasted longer than six months;
    • her inability to work for such a long period of time made her incapable of performing her job's essential functions; and
    • it was not a reasonable accommodation to require the university to keep her job open for such a long time period.
  • The university's inflexible leave policy was not inherently discriminatory because:
    • inflexible leave policies ensure that all employees' leave requests are treated the same;
    • flexible leave policies risk being more discriminatory because they have fewer rules, more discretion and less transparency;
    • in a similar case, the US Supreme Court held that inflexible seniority policies do not necessarily discriminate against the disabled because they provide fair and uniform treatment, introduce an element of due process and limit potential unfairness in personnel decisions (US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (2002));
    • the university's policy granted all employees a full six months of sick leave, which complies with requirements of the Rehabilitation Act;
    • she made no allegations that the university enforced its sick leave policy unequally; and
    • her claim that she was subject to disparate treatment because some employees were granted sabbaticals lasting up to one year fails because she did not allege facts suggesting that non-disabled similarly situated employees received more favorable treatment.
  • The language in the EEOC's guidance requiring employers to modify inflexible sick leave policies as a reasonable accommodation was not helpful to the plaintiff's claim because:
    • the court only needs to defer to the EEOC's guidance to the extent it proves persuasive, and this language does not answer when a modification to an inflexible leave policy is legally necessary to provide a reasonable accommodation;
    • the EEOC's guidance also states that an employer does not have to retain an employee unable to perform her essential job functions for six months because six months is beyond a reasonable amount of time; and
    • the two enumerated exceptions to the EEOC's requirement that employers modify an inflexible leave policy only come into play after it is clear that the modification is a reasonable accommodation needed to ensure that she can perform her essential job functions.
The court also denied the plaintiff's retaliation claim, holding that:
  • Her allegation that the university failed to immediately explain her post-employment benefits under COBRA had no merit since:
    • the university had 30 days to supply her with COBRA notice; and
    • she did not allege that it failed to act within the statutory period.
  • She did not plead any facts supporting her claim that the university retaliated against her when it did not hire her for two positions for which she applied. Specifically, she failed to allege that:
    • she was qualified for the two positions; and
    • the officials hiring for the positions were aware of her disability.

Practical Implications

This decision reinforces that inflexible leave policies are not inherently discriminatory and clarifies how the Tenth Circuit will evaluate whether accommodations are reasonable under the Rehabilitation Act.