Jones v. Nationwide Life Insurance
696 F.3d 78, 2012 WL 4373690, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 20217 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer is not required to grant a requested disability accommodation, such as an extension to meet a job requirement, if the request is made only after an adverse employment action is imminent, and the employee fails to adequately link their disability to the need for accommodation or demonstrate the accommodation's facial reasonableness and likelihood of success.
Facts:
- Mark Jones worked for Nationwide Life Insurance Company (NLI) as a Retirement Program Services Director since 2001, a managerial position requiring him to supervise Retirement Specialists and maintain client relationships.
- In 1979, Jones developed brachial plexus palsy (BPP) due to a motorcycle accident, causing chronic pain and limited use of his left arm, for which he regularly took painkillers.
- In February 2006, NLI informed Jones and other employees that to sell a new product (ProAccount), they would need to become an Investment Advisor Representative (IAR) by passing the Series 65 or 66 licensing exam, which would become a job requirement.
- Despite receiving multiple notices of the requirement, opportunities to take preparatory classes, and several testing windows between 2006 and 2008, Jones delayed scheduling exams and failed the Series 65 exam on June 15, 2007, February 27, 2008, and April 30, 2008.
- By December 2007, NLI explicitly stated that passing the Series 65 exam by December 31, 2008, was a condition of employment, and failure would result in transfer or termination, a requirement uniformly applied.
- After failing the exam for a fourth time on December 23, 2008, Jones, on December 24 and then more formally on December 28, 2008, for the first time, mentioned that his "recent medical condition and resulting treatment" (including high doses of pain medication) had impacted his academic ability and requested an extension to take the exam again.
- NLI declined Jones's request for an extension, citing consistent company policy and Jones's ample prior opportunities, but offered him an alternate Retirement Specialist position in Maryland which did not require the Series 65 license and was at lesser pay, which Jones declined.
- Jones's employment was terminated on January 31, 2009, after he failed to secure another position within NLI.
Procedural Posture:
- On October 7, 2010, Mark Jones filed a complaint in Massachusetts Superior Court against Nationwide Life Insurance Company (NLI), Nationwide Retirement Solutions, Inc. (NRS), and NRSIA, alleging disability discrimination, failure to reasonably accommodate, and failure to engage in an interactive process under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B.
- The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on November 15, 2010, on the grounds of diversity jurisdiction.
- NRSIA was dismissed as a defendant on January 24, 2010 (likely 2011, but the text states 2010).
- Jones amended his complaint against NLI and NRS on February 17, 2011, to add a cause of action under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
- After discovery, on November 10, 2011, the defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on March 5, 2012, concluding that Jones failed to demonstrate he suffered from a disability or that his requested accommodation was reasonable.
- Jones timely appealed this decision on March 28, 2012, to the United States Court of Appeals for the First 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 refusal to grant an extension to an employee to pass a required licensing exam, when the employee requests the accommodation for the first time only after repeatedly failing the exam and after an adverse employment action is imminent, constitute a failure to provide reasonable accommodation under the ADA and Massachusetts disability law?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Lynch
No, an employer's refusal to grant an extension to an employee to pass a required licensing exam does not constitute a failure to provide reasonable accommodation under the ADA and Massachusetts disability law when the employee requests the accommodation for the first time only after repeatedly failing the exam and after an adverse employment action is imminent. The court affirmed summary judgment for NLI, finding that Jones's requested accommodation was not reasonable. First, the court held that obtaining the Series 65 license was an essential function of Jones's job, giving significant deference to NLI's business judgment, noting the explicit job requirement, the fact that all other Program Directors had obtained it, and that Jones's inability to obtain it required his supervisor to take on some of his duties. Second, Jones's accommodation request for an extension was deemed "too little, too late" because it was made for the first time on December 28, 2008, just days before the December 31 deadline for which he had over a year's notice, and only after it was clear that an adverse employment action was imminent. Furthermore, Jones failed to adequately link his medical condition to his inability to pass the exam or provide sufficient information to put NLI on notice of a disability-related need for accommodation. Even if notice was sufficient, Jones did not demonstrate the facial reasonableness of the requested six-month extension, as he had already failed the exam four times over several years, giving NLI no reason to believe another opportunity would lead to success. The court cited precedents like Reed v. LePage Bakeries, Inc. and U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett for the requirement that an accommodation request be timely and facially reasonable, demonstrating a likelihood of success. The court also rejected Jones's claims for failure to engage in an interactive process and disparate treatment, as he failed to establish he was a qualified individual able to perform essential job functions with a reasonable accommodation.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the strict requirements for employees seeking reasonable accommodations under disability laws, particularly regarding the timing and specificity of such requests. It emphasizes that a request made only when termination is imminent, without prior notice of a disability-related need or a clear demonstration of how the accommodation would enable job performance, may be deemed unreasonable. The decision also underscores judicial deference to employers' judgments regarding essential job functions and the importance of an employee demonstrating the likelihood of success for a requested accommodation. Future cases may rely on this ruling to assess the timeliness and reasonableness of accommodation requests, especially when an employee has had ample prior opportunity to meet a job requirement.
