Credeur v. Louisiana Ex Rel. Office of the Attorney General
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 11269, 860 F.3d 785, 2017 WL 2704015 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), regular on-site attendance can be an essential function of a job, particularly for interactive and team-oriented positions. An employer's judgment is given significant weight in determining a job's essential functions, and an employee's subjective belief that they can perform the job remotely does not, by itself, create a genuine issue of material fact.
Facts:
- Renee Credeur worked as a litigation attorney for the Office of the Attorney General for the State of Louisiana (DOJ).
- After a 2010 kidney transplant, Credeur developed serious health complications in 2013.
- Following the exhaustion of her FMLA leave, Credeur's physician recommended she work from home and slowly reintegrate into the office as her strength improved.
- The DOJ granted Credeur a temporary accommodation to work from home, with the explicitly stated goal of her eventual reintegration into the office.
- In early 2014, after receiving conflicting medical evaluations regarding Credeur's ability to return to the office, the DOJ determined long-term remote work was not feasible for a litigation attorney.
- The DOJ offered Credeur an alternative accommodation requiring her to work 3-4 hours per day in the office and not from home, which she rejected.
- Upon her return to the office, the DOJ presented Credeur with a 'Last Chance Agreement' detailing performance issues, which she refused to sign.
- After developing a contagious infection, Credeur again requested to work from home; the DOJ denied the request but allowed her to take unpaid leave.
Procedural Posture:
- Renee Credeur filed suit against the DOJ in a Louisiana state court.
- The DOJ removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.
- The DOJ filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims.
- The district court (trial court) granted summary judgment in favor of the DOJ, finding that Credeur was not a 'qualified individual' under the ADA.
- Credeur, as the appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, with the DOJ as the appellee.
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 fail to provide a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by denying an employee's request for long-term remote work when the employer determines that regular on-site attendance is an essential function of the job?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge James E. Graves, Jr.
No. An employer does not fail to provide a reasonable accommodation under the ADA by denying an employee's request for long-term remote work when it has reasonably determined that regular on-site attendance is an essential function of the job. The court afforded significant weight to the DOJ's judgment that regular attendance is essential for a litigation attorney, a position it deemed highly interactive and team-based. The court found that an employee's unsupported testimony about their ability to perform the job's essential functions from home is insufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact to survive summary judgment. While the DOJ had previously granted a temporary accommodation, this did not obligate it to provide an indefinite one, especially when evidence showed Credeur's absence created a strain on the office and her performance was deficient. Therefore, Credeur was not a 'qualified individual' under the ADA because she could not perform the essential function of office attendance, with or without a reasonable accommodation.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that employers retain significant discretion in defining the essential functions of a job, especially regarding physical attendance. It clarifies that a temporary accommodation, such as remote work, does not create an employee's right to that accommodation indefinitely. The ruling signals that an employee's self-assessment of their ability to work remotely is insufficient to overcome an employer's reasoned business judgment, making it more challenging for employees in collaborative roles to secure long-term telework as an ADA accommodation.
