Kenneth W. Cochrum v. Old Ben Coal Company
6 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 219, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 33084, 102 F.3d 908 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) does not require an employer to provide accommodations that would eliminate the essential functions of a job, create a new light-duty position where one does not exist, or violate the seniority rights of other employees under a collective bargaining agreement.
Facts:
- Kenneth Cochrum worked as a roof bolter for Old Ben Coal Company, a job requiring overhead work, heavy lifting, and pushing/pulling.
- Cochrum sustained a work-related shoulder injury in 1989 and reinjured it in 1991 and 1992, requiring surgery and extended time off.
- In March 1993, Old Ben's company doctor released Cochrum to return to work without any restrictions.
- Cochrum's personal doctor, however, released him with permanent restrictions: no overhead work, no heavy lifting, and no pushing or pulling out from his body.
- Cochrum admitted that these restrictions made it impossible for him to perform the duties of a roof bolter.
- When Old Ben directed Cochrum to return to his roof bolter position in April 1993, he reported to the mine but refused to perform the work for four consecutive days, citing his doctor's restrictions.
- On May 5, 1993, Old Ben suspended Cochrum for his unexcused absences.
- No other union positions that Cochrum could perform with his restrictions were available at the mine.
Procedural Posture:
- Kenneth Cochrum sued Old Ben Coal Company in federal district court, alleging disability discrimination in violation of the ADA.
- The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge.
- Old Ben moved for summary judgment.
- The magistrate judge granted summary judgment in favor of Old Ben, concluding that Cochrum was not 'disabled' within the meaning of the ADA.
- Cochrum, the appellant, appealed the grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh 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 violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by declining to provide an accommodation for an employee whose physical restrictions prevent him from performing the essential functions of his job, when the requested accommodations are unreasonable and no other vacant positions are available?
Opinions:
Majority - Manion, J.
No. An employer does not violate the ADA by failing to accommodate an employee who cannot perform the essential functions of his job, even with reasonable accommodations. Cochrum was not a 'qualified individual' under the ADA because he admitted he could not perform the essential functions of a roof bolter. His suggested accommodations—hiring a helper, creating a new light-duty position, or granting him superseniority—were not reasonable. Hiring a helper would mean the helper, not Cochrum, would be performing the job's essential functions. The ADA does not require an employer to create a new position or reallocate essential job functions. Furthermore, an employer is not required to violate a collective bargaining agreement to reassign a disabled employee. Since no reasonable accommodation existed that would enable Cochrum to perform his job and no other vacant positions were available, Old Ben's actions did not violate the ADA.
Concurring - Cudahy, J.
No. I agree with the majority's conclusion but write to emphasize that an employee is 'qualified' under the ADA if they can perform the essential functions of either their current job or another available job, with or without accommodation. The ADA may require an employer to transfer an employee to a different, vacant position for which they are qualified. However, in this case, it is undisputed that no such positions were available at the mine for Cochrum.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the boundaries of an employer's duty to provide 'reasonable accommodation' under the ADA. It establishes that an accommodation is unreasonable if it fundamentally alters the nature of the job by eliminating its essential functions. The decision reinforces that the ADA is not a mandate for employers to create new jobs or ignore bona fide, collectively bargained seniority systems. This provides a clear defense for employers against claims where an employee is unable to perform their core duties and the only potential accommodations are transformative or violate existing labor agreements.
