In an Americans with Disabilities Act case, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has reversed a lower court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of a company operating a call center that refused to accommodate a schedule change request from an employee who wanted different hours so he did not have to drive home at night because he had cataracts.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Kimmons v. Charter Communications can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff worked in a call center for the defendant, which was an hour away from his home. The plaintiff’s shift was from 12pm to 9pm. He had been diagnosed with cataracts, which makes driving at night more difficult. He asked the defendant to modify his work schedule, which it did for 30 days, allowing him to start work and leave two hours earlier than his normal schedule. The plaintiff asked to extend the modified schedule while he looked for a place to live that was closer to his office, which the defendant denied.
The plaintiff filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which failed to reach an agreement with the defendant. The EEOC then filed this suit, alleging the company violated the ADA by failing to accommodate the plaintiff’s disability. A District Court judge granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, ruling the plaintiff did not need any accommodation to perform his job.
This case is somewhat different than most ADA cases because it involved the commute to and from work and not the work itself, the Seventh Circuit noted.
“Charter has not demonstrated as a matter of law that the accommodation would have imposed an undue hardship,” the Court wrote. “Charter also has not shown that the accommodation would have imposed unfair burdens on other employees or would have been too costly. This record simply does not establish beyond dispute that the requested accommodation would have been unreasonable or imposed an undue hardship. Kimmons was not asking for an unaccountable, work-when-able schedule or a permanent accommodation. He did not demand the company itself transport him to work. He asked only for a temporary work schedule that would start and end two hours earlier while he found time to move closer. A jury could have found his requested accommodation to be reasonable.”
