Regan v. Faurecia Automotive Seating, Inc.
2012 WL 1623206, 26 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 257, 679 F.3d 475 (2012)
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 a reasonable accommodation, such as a modified work schedule, to eliminate barriers that exist outside the work environment, such as an employee's commute.
Facts:
- Alisha Regan worked for Faurecia Automotive Seating, Inc. as a Prototype Seat Builder and had informed the company of her narcolepsy diagnosis.
- Initially, Regan's work hours were from 6:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. and she lived 24 miles from the facility.
- In January 2008, Regan moved to a new home 79 miles away from the Faurecia facility, significantly increasing her commute.
- For productivity reasons, Faurecia changed the standard work hours for Regan's department to 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., effective September 29, 2008.
- Regan requested to either keep her old schedule or work from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. without a lunch break, stating that commuting during the new hours would involve heavier traffic and exacerbate her narcolepsy symptoms.
- Faurecia managers denied her request, suggesting she could apply for Family and Medical Leave Act leave or quit.
- Regan obtained a doctor's note recommending a 6 a.m. to 3 p.m. schedule to minimize her drive time, which she claims to have given to management.
- On September 29, 2008, after her request was not granted, Regan submitted her resignation, citing the impact the schedule change would have on her medical condition.
Procedural Posture:
- Alisha Regan filed suit against Faurecia Automotive Seating, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
- Regan alleged disability discrimination under the ADA and state law, and gender discrimination under Title VII and state law.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Faurecia, on all of Regan's claims.
- Regan, as the appellant, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, with Faurecia 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 the Americans with Disabilities Act require an employer to provide a modified work schedule as a reasonable accommodation for an employee's disability when the requested accommodation is intended solely to make the employee's commute easier?
Opinions:
Majority - Boyce F. Martin, Jr.
No. The Americans with Disabilities Act does not require an employer to accommodate an employee’s request for a commute during more convenient hours. The court reasoned that an employer's duty to provide reasonable accommodations is limited to eliminating barriers within the work environment. Citing persuasive authority from other jurisdictions, the court held that an employee's commute is a barrier that exists outside the workplace and is therefore not an activity the employer is required to accommodate. Regan's proposal of a modified schedule for the purpose of commuting in allegedly lighter traffic is not a required reasonable accommodation under the ADA. Furthermore, her gender discrimination claim fails because the denial of a modified schedule is not an 'adverse employment action' but a 'mere inconvenience,' and her resignation did not qualify as a constructive discharge because the one-hour shift in schedule did not create 'intolerable working conditions.'
Analysis:
This decision aligns the Sixth Circuit with other federal courts in establishing a clear boundary for an employer's duty to accommodate under the ADA. It solidifies the principle that this duty is confined to the workplace itself, not the employee's journey to and from it. The ruling provides employers with a defense against accommodation requests related to commuting, placing the responsibility for managing travel to work squarely on the employee, even one with a disability. This precedent narrows the scope of what constitutes a 'reasonable accommodation' and may limit the success of future claims where the requested accommodation's primary purpose is to ease an employee's commute.
