Colwell v. Rite Aid Corp.
602 F. Supp. 3d 495, 22 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1857, 602 F.3d 495 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer's duty to provide a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) may include modifying an employee's work schedule if that change is a reasonable way to address a disability-related difficulty in commuting to work, because a work schedule is a condition of employment within the employer's control.
Facts:
- In April 2005, Jeanette Colwell began working as a part-time cashier at a Rite Aid store, typically on weekday evening shifts from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m.
- During the summer of 2005, Colwell was diagnosed with a condition that resulted in blindness in her left eye.
- In mid-September 2005, Colwell informed her supervisor, Susan Chapman, that her partial blindness made it dangerous for her to drive at night and requested to be assigned exclusively to day shifts, noting that public transportation was not available.
- Chapman denied the request, stating it would be unfair to other employees.
- In late September or early October 2005, Colwell provided Chapman with a doctor's note recommending that she not drive at night; Chapman again denied the request for a schedule change.
- Colwell told Chapman her grandson could occasionally provide a ride but that she could not always depend on others for transportation.
- Colwell involved her union representative, but after a scheduled meeting with management fell through, she resigned on October 12, 2005, citing unfair treatment.
Procedural Posture:
- Jeanette Colwell filed a lawsuit against Rite Aid of Pennsylvania, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, alleging disability discrimination for failure to accommodate under the ADA.
- Following discovery, both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The District Court granted Rite Aid's motion for summary judgment, finding that an employer has no duty under the ADA to accommodate an employee's commute.
- Colwell, as the appellant, appealed the District Court's grant of summary judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer's duty to provide a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) extend to granting a shift change for an employee whose disability makes commuting to a night shift difficult and dangerous?
Opinions:
Majority - Sloviter, Circuit Judge.
Yes, an employer's duty to provide a reasonable accommodation under the ADA can extend to a shift change that alleviates an employee's disability-related commuting difficulties. The court reasoned that while an employer is not responsible for an employee's commute itself, a work schedule is a condition of employment entirely within the employer's control. The ADA statute explicitly lists 'modified work schedules' as a potential reasonable accommodation. The court rejected the district court's view that accommodations are limited to addressing barriers that exist only within the physical workplace. This request was not for a new means of transportation but for a change to a workplace condition—the timing of the work itself—that would enable the employee to get to her job and perform her duties. Because genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the requested accommodation was reasonable and whether both parties engaged in the interactive process in good faith, summary judgment was inappropriate.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies that an employer's duty to accommodate under the ADA is not strictly confined to the physical boundaries of the workplace. It establishes precedent in the Third Circuit that changes to workplace conditions, like work schedules, can constitute a reasonable accommodation even when the problem they solve is related to commuting. This ruling broadens the scope of what may be considered a reasonable accommodation, requiring employers to seriously consider and engage in an interactive process regarding requests that impact an employee's ability to get to work, so long as the requested accommodation itself is a modification of a workplace policy or condition.
