Joshua Bunn v. Khoury Enterprises, Inc.
753 F.3d 676, 29 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1518, 2014 WL 2198557 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer satisfies its duty to provide a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by implementing an effective accommodation that enables the employee to perform the essential functions of a job, even if it is not the employee's preferred accommodation. A failure to engage in a perfect interactive process does not create a separate cause of action if a reasonable accommodation was ultimately provided.
Facts:
- Joshua Bunn, who is legally blind, was hired by Khoury Enterprises in September 2010 to work at a Dairy Queen franchise.
- Bunn was initially assigned to the "Chill" department but could not perform certain duties because his vision impairment prevented him from reading small ingredient labels and high-mounted order monitors.
- Store manager Larry Johnson reassigned Bunn to work exclusively in the "Expo" department, where his duties involved delivering food and cleaning, which he was able to perform.
- Unlike other hourly employees who rotated departments, Bunn's position was restructured so that he only worked in Expo, and he was scheduled for full-time hours in this role.
- On November 17, 2010, Bunn was suspended for ten days for insubordination towards a manager after being repeatedly warned about using his cell phone during his shift.
- Following his suspension, during the winter months of December 2010 and January 2011, Bunn's scheduled hours decreased.
- It was undisputed that business demand decreased during cold weather months, and Bunn also requested and received seven days off in December.
- Bunn resigned on February 1, 2011, stating he believed he could find more work hours with another employer.
Procedural Posture:
- Joshua Bunn filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
- The EEOC declined to pursue the charge and issued Bunn a right-to-sue letter.
- Bunn sued Khoury Enterprises in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, alleging failure to accommodate and disparate treatment in violation of the ADA.
- Khoury Enterprises filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Khoury Enterprises.
- Bunn, as the appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, with Khoury Enterprises 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) when it modifies a disabled employee's job duties to a position they can perform, rather than providing the specific accommodations the employee requested for their original role?
Opinions:
Majority - Kanne, Circuit Judge.
No, the employer did not fail to provide a reasonable accommodation. Khoury Enterprises satisfied its obligation under the ADA by providing Bunn with an effective accommodation that enabled him to work. The ADA requires an employer to make 'reasonable accommodations,' which can include job restructuring or reassignment to a vacant position. By moving Bunn to the Expo role, a position he could perform successfully, Khoury provided a change in the work environment that enabled Bunn to enjoy equal employment opportunities. The court emphasized that the law is concerned with the ultimate outcome—whether an effective accommodation was provided—not the interactive process itself. An employee is not entitled to their preferred accommodation, only to a reasonable one, and Khoury's actions met this legal standard. Bunn's separate disparate treatment claim also fails because he presented no evidence of discriminatory animus and could not show that Khoury's legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for his reduced hours (seasonal business slowdown, his own vacation requests, and weather closures) were pretextual.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the legal principle that the focus of an ADA accommodation claim is the effectiveness of the accommodation provided, not the process by which it was chosen. It clarifies that an employer's duty is fulfilled by providing an effective accommodation, not necessarily the one the employee wants or requests. This precedent makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed on claims based solely on a flawed interactive process, protecting employers who ultimately provide a workable solution for a disabled employee. The ruling underscores that the ADA is a shield against discrimination, not a tool for employees to dictate the precise terms of their employment conditions beyond what is reasonably necessary to perform their job.
