Rask v. Fresenius Medical Care North America
509 F.3d 466, 13 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 82, 19 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1697 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the initial burden is on the employee to provide the employer with sufficient notice by specifically identifying their disability, the resulting limitations, and suggesting a reasonable accommodation before the employer's duty to accommodate is triggered.
Facts:
- Elizabeth Rask worked as a patient care technician at Fresenius Medical Care North America's kidney dialysis clinics, a job requiring her presence to care for seriously ill patients.
- Rask had a long history of depression.
- She experienced a series of disciplinary and attendance problems over the course of her employment.
- In a meeting with two supervisors, Rask stated, 'I'm having problems with my medication and... I might miss a day here and there because of it.'
- Rask failed to report to work for her scheduled shift on May 28, 2004.
- Following her absence on May 28, 2004, Fresenius terminated Rask's employment.
Procedural Posture:
- Elizabeth Rask sued her former employer, Fresenius Medical Care North America, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.
- Rask's complaint alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer, Fresenius.
- Rask (appellant) appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth 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 have a duty to provide a reasonable accommodation under the ADA when an employee with a non-obvious disability states they are having 'problems with medication' and 'might miss a day here and there,' but fails to specifically identify their disability's resulting limitations?
Opinions:
Majority - Arnold, Circuit Judge.
No. An employer's duty to provide a reasonable accommodation under the ADA is not triggered unless the employee provides sufficient notice of the disability, its limitations, and a proposed accommodation. Rask failed to show she was a 'qualified individual' under the ADA because she could not perform the essential job function of regular and reliable attendance. Her statement that she was 'having problems with my medication' and 'might miss a day here and there' was too vague to constitute the specific notice required to trigger the employer's duty to engage in the interactive process. Rask did not specifically identify the limitations her depression caused, which is a prerequisite for the employer to understand the need for an accommodation. Furthermore, the court held that requesting an accommodation of sudden, unpredictable absences for a hands-on patient care job is not reasonable as a matter of law, as it is for the employee's personal benefit rather than an aid to perform the job's duties. The court applied similar reasoning to her FMLA claim, finding she failed to provide enough information to put Fresenius on notice that she had a 'serious health condition' that would qualify for leave.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that the employee bears the initial burden of invoking the ADA's protections, especially for non-obvious disabilities like mental illness. It clarifies that vague or ambiguous statements about health issues are insufficient to trigger an employer's duty to engage in the interactive process for finding a reasonable accommodation. The case sets a practical boundary on what constitutes a 'reasonable accommodation,' suggesting that unpredictable, unscheduled absences are generally not reasonable, particularly in roles where physical presence is an essential function. This holding makes it more difficult for employees to succeed on ADA claims if they have not clearly and specifically communicated their needs to their employer before an adverse action is taken.
