Hwang v. Kansas State University
753 F.3d 1159
| 10th Cir. | 2014Background
- Grace Hwang, an assistant professor on a one-year contract at Kansas State University, was diagnosed with cancer before fall term and obtained a six-month paid leave.
- As her doctor advised extending leave, Hwang requested through spring term with a plan to return for summer; University refused due to a six-month inflexible leave policy.
- Hwang alleged the policy violated the Rehabilitation Act by denying a reasonable accommodation to perform her job.
- The district court dismissed, and Hwang appeals arguing the policy is not a valid, necessary limitation on accommodations.
- The court analyzes whether a six-month leave can be a reasonable accommodation and examines related retaliation and COBRA-related claims.
- The court ultimately holds the six-month inflexible leave policy ordinarily does not constitute a required accommodation and affirms dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether six months’ inflexible leave is a per se violation | Hwang argues inflexible six-month policy must be modified as reasonable accommodation. | University contends six months is beyond a reasonable accommodation and policy is permissible. | No, six months is not a required accommodation under the Act. |
| Whether Hwang can establish a reasonable accommodation under the Act | Hwang contends she needed more than six months to work with accommodation. | University asserts she could not perform essential functions for six months and thus no accommodation. | Hwang failed to show she could perform essential functions with a reasonable accommodation. |
| Whether inflexible leave policy can be discriminatory under Rehabilitation Act | Hwang claims inflexibility targets disabled employees in violation of the Act. | University asserts policy applied equally with no evidence of discriminatory enforcement. | Policy was applied uniformly and no allegations show discriminatory intent or effect. |
| Whether retaliation claims have merit | Hwang asserts retaliation for protected activity by denying future employment opportunities. | No facts show animus related to disability or protected opposition in the hiring decisions. | Claims fail for lack of plausible facts linking retaliation to disability or opposition. |
Key Cases Cited
- US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 F.3d 391 (US Supreme Court 2002) (reasonable accommodation framework and undue hardship considerations for leave policies)
- Mason v. Avaya Commc'ns, Inc., 357 F.3d 1114 (10th Cir. 2004) (accommodation concept focuses on enabling employee to perform essential functions)
- Brockman v. Wyoming Dep't of Family Servs., 342 F.3d 1159 (10th Cir. 2003) (distance between leave and essential functions in weighing reasonable accommodations)
- Mathews v. Denver Post, 263 F.3d 1164 (10th Cir. 2001) (accommodation analysis includes emphasis on enabling performance of essential duties)
- Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2012) (requirement to plead facts suggesting differential treatment of similarly situated employees)
- Rascon v. U S West Communications, Inc., 143 F.3d 1324 (10th Cir. 1998) (discrimination inference from apparent disparate treatment may arise)