Stewart v. Happy Herman's Cheshire Bridge, Inc.
117 F.3d 1278 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer satisfies its duty of reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by offering viable accommodation options and is not liable for failing to provide an employee's preferred accommodation, especially when the employee's own confrontational actions cause a breakdown in the interactive process.
Facts:
- In November 1991, Teri Stewart was hired by Happy Herman's grocery store after informing manager David Levine that she had physical limitations from a prior surgery, requiring accommodations like frequent bathroom breaks and an inability to lift heavy objects.
- From November 1991 through April 1993, Happy Herman's granted all of Stewart's requests for accommodation, such as reassigning heavy lifting duties, providing help with groceries, and allowing frequent bathroom and cigarette breaks.
- On April 27, 1993, Stewart's supervisor, Guy Cassingham, informed her that paid lunch breaks would be shortened from about 25 minutes to 15 minutes, to which Stewart responded with profanity toward both the supervisor and the general manager.
- Stewart told management that the new policy caused her physical problems and began a campaign to get a 30-minute paid break for all employees, not just for herself as a disability accommodation.
- In response, management posted a formal policy allowing employees a 20-minute paid break or an unpaid break of up to 60 minutes if the employee clocked out.
- Stewart escalated her campaign by distributing flyers titled 'The Fifteen Minute War' that were critical of management and by calling managers 'petty tyrants,' which resulted in a disciplinary warning for insubordination.
- On June 4, 1993, management met with Stewart again and offered her several potential accommodations: an uninterrupted 20-minute paid break, shorter work shifts, a leave of absence, or planned break times.
- Following continued behavior deemed insubordinate, including refusing a supervisor's direct order in front of a customer, Happy Herman's terminated Stewart's employment for insubordination on June 29, 1993.
Procedural Posture:
- Teri Stewart filed a lawsuit against Happy Herman's in U.S. District Court, alleging disability discrimination and retaliation in violation of the ADA.
- Happy Herman's moved for summary judgment to dismiss the case.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Happy Herman's, finding that Stewart failed to establish she had a disability and failed to show that the company's reason for firing her was pretextual.
- The district court also granted Happy Herman's motion for sanctions and attorney's fees against Stewart.
- Stewart (appellant) appealed the district court's decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, with Happy Herman's 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 violate the ADA by not providing an employee's preferred accommodation when it offers multiple other reasonable accommodations, and the employee's confrontational behavior causes a breakdown in the interactive process?
Opinions:
Majority - Hatchett, Chief Judge
No, an employer does not violate the ADA under these circumstances. The ADA requires an employer to provide a reasonable accommodation, not the specific accommodation of the employee's choice. In this case, Happy Herman's offered Stewart at least five different reasonable accommodations, including an uninterrupted 20-minute paid break, an unpaid break of up to 60 minutes, shorter shifts, and a leave of absence. Instead of engaging in the 'interactive process' to find a suitable accommodation for her disability, Stewart shifted her focus to advocating for a policy change for all employees and behaved in a highly confrontational manner. Liability under the ADA cannot arise when the employee's own actions cause a breakdown in the interactive process. Furthermore, the court found no evidence of retaliatory discharge, as Happy Herman's provided a legitimate, non-pretextual reason for her termination: her repeated acts of insubordination.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the responsibilities of both the employer and employee in the ADA's 'interactive process' for determining a reasonable accommodation. It establishes that an employer's obligation is fulfilled by offering a reasonable solution, not necessarily the employee's preferred one. The case is significant for holding that an employee's confrontational conduct and failure to engage constructively in the accommodation process can absolve an employer of liability. This precedent protects employers from liability when an employee attempts to leverage an individual accommodation request into a broader negotiation for all workers or when the employee's own behavior, rather than the employer's inaction, derails the process.
Unlock the full brief for Stewart v. Happy Herman's Cheshire Bridge, Inc.