Zenaida Garc A-Ayala v. Lederle Parenterals, Inc.
212 F. 3d 638, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 11030, 10 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 865 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer's leave policy does not create a per se rule for what constitutes a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A request for additional unpaid leave beyond the employer's established policy can be a reasonable accommodation, and the employer bears the burden of proving that granting it would impose an undue hardship.
Facts:
- Zenaida Garcia-Ayala worked as a secretary for Lederle Parenterals, Inc. from 1983.
- Since 1986, Garcia battled breast cancer, requiring several significant medical leaves of absence.
- Lederle had a company policy of reserving an employee's job for one year while they were on disability leave.
- In November 1995, Garcia began an extended leave for bone marrow treatment related to her cancer.
- In April 1996, Garcia's doctors informed Lederle that she would be able to return to work on July 30, 1996.
- On June 10, 1996, Lederle informed Garcia that her one-year job reservation period had expired in March 1996 and terminated her employment.
- Garcia requested that her job be held until her expected return date of July 30, but Lederle denied the request.
- Throughout Garcia's absence and for more than seven months after her termination, Lederle used temporary agency employees to perform her job functions.
Procedural Posture:
- Zenaida Garcia-Ayala sued Lederle Parenterals, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
- The parties submitted a joint stipulation of uncontested material facts.
- Both Garcia and Lederle filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer, Lederle, holding that Garcia's request for additional leave was not a reasonable accommodation.
- Garcia, as the appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First 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 by terminating a disabled employee for exceeding its one-year leave policy, when the employee requests a finite, additional period of unpaid leave to recover and the employer has been covering the position with temporary workers without demonstrating any hardship?
Opinions:
Majority - Lynch, Circuit Judge.
Yes, the employer's termination of the employee violates the ADA. A request for an extended medical leave can be a reasonable accommodation, and its reasonableness must be determined through an individualized, fact-specific assessment, not by a per se application of the employer's internal leave policies. Here, Garcia requested a finite, two-month extension of leave, not an indefinite one. The employer, Lederle, failed to meet its burden of proving that this accommodation would impose an undue hardship, especially given that it had successfully used temporary employees to cover Garcia's essential job functions without any apparent financial or operational burden. The ADA requires employers to do more than just follow their own policies; they must engage in an interactive process and provide reasonable accommodations unless doing so causes an undue hardship.
Dissenting - O'Toole, District Judge
No, the employer's termination of the employee does not violate the ADA. An accommodation, by definition, must enable an employee to perform the essential functions of their job. The requested leave did not enable Garcia to perform her job; rather, it excused her from performing it. The ADA protects individuals who 'can perform' their job in the present tense, with or without accommodation, not those who might be able to perform it in the future after a lengthy absence. The majority's holding improperly transforms the ADA from an anti-discrimination statute into a job security statute for employees on extended medical leave, which is not its intended purpose.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that company leave policies are not a safe harbor against ADA claims and do not define the outer limits of a reasonable accommodation. It strongly reinforces the requirement for an individualized assessment of an employee's request for extended leave. The case places a significant burden on employers to produce specific evidence of 'undue hardship' if they wish to deny such a request, making it more difficult to terminate employees who need more recovery time than a fixed policy allows. The court's focus on the employer's use of temporary workers as evidence against a hardship claim provides a clear, practical factor for future litigants and courts to consider.
