Terri Basden v. Professional Transportation
714 F.3d 1034, 27 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1580, 20 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1017 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer does not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by terminating an employee for excessive absenteeism when the employee cannot produce evidence that a requested accommodation would enable them to become a 'qualified individual' capable of regular attendance, which is an essential job function. An employer's failure to engage in the interactive process is not independently actionable if the employee cannot first establish they are a qualified individual.
Facts:
- Professional Transportation, Inc. (PTI) hired Terri Basden as a dispatcher on June 29, 2007.
- PTI maintained a progressive attendance policy that could lead to termination after an employee's eighth incident of absenteeism within a year.
- Beginning in January 2008, Basden experienced symptoms suggestive of multiple sclerosis, leading to numerous absences from work.
- Between January and May 2008, Basden accumulated seven distinct incidents of absence, triggering a verbal warning, a written warning, and finally a three-day suspension.
- Basden requested and was granted a move to a part-time position on May 1, 2008.
- On May 23, 2008, while suspended and before her one-year work anniversary, Basden requested a 30-day unpaid leave of absence, citing complications from her medical illness.
- PTI denied Basden's leave request.
- PTI terminated Basden's employment when she failed to return to work following her three-day suspension.
Procedural Posture:
- Terri Basden filed a complaint against Professional Transportation, Inc. in federal district court, alleging violations of the ADA and FMLA.
- PTI filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of PTI, finding Basden failed to establish a prima facie case under either statute.
- Basden, as the appellant, appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, with PTI 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 denying a leave of absence and terminating an employee for excessive absences when the employee fails to present evidence that the requested leave would enable them to regularly perform the essential job function of attendance in the future?
Opinions:
Majority - Coleman, District Judge.
No. An employer does not violate the ADA by terminating an employee for failing to meet the essential job function of regular attendance, where the employee cannot demonstrate that a requested accommodation would allow her to meet that function. To be a 'qualified individual' under the ADA, an employee must be able to perform the essential functions of their job, and regular attendance is generally considered an essential function. The burden is on the employee to produce evidence showing that a reasonable accommodation would enable her to attend work regularly. In this case, Basden provided no medical evidence, only her own hope, that a 30-day leave would resolve her attendance issues. At the time of her termination, she lacked a final diagnosis, a treatment plan, or an anticipated date of return. While PTI may have failed to engage in the ADA's required interactive process, this failure is not an independent basis for liability. It is only actionable if it prevents the identification of an appropriate accommodation for a qualified individual, and Basden failed to present evidence that she was a qualified individual. Furthermore, her FMLA claim fails because she had not been employed for the requisite 12 months to be eligible for FMLA protection.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the legal principle that regular attendance is an essential job function and places a significant evidentiary burden on employees with attendance issues. It clarifies that an employee must provide more than speculative hope; they need concrete evidence, often from a medical provider, that a requested accommodation will prospectively solve the attendance problem. The ruling also limits the impact of an employer's procedural failure to engage in the interactive process, making it irrelevant if the employee cannot first meet the substantive threshold of being a 'qualified individual.' This strengthens an employer's ability to enforce neutral attendance policies against employees with disabilities whose conditions lead to erratic and unpredictable absences.
Unlock the full brief for Terri Basden v. Professional Transportation