Megan Sedlacek v. the University of Iowa and State Board of Regents
16-1200
Iowa Ct. App.Jun 21, 2017Background
- Sedlacek was hired as a University of Iowa custodian in 2006 and had a long history of attendance problems; University attendance policy set progressive discipline up to termination for excessive absences.
- She received discipline and suspensions for unapproved/unexcused absences from 2009–2010 and was terminated in December 2010, then reinstated by a union grievance with an agreement that any future AWOP (except FMLA) would allow immediate termination.
- Sedlacek received intermittent FMLA leave for depression (physician certified flare-ups of 0–3 times/month lasting 1–2 days) and later took leave after a 2012 work injury; she exhausted FMLA and had no accrued leave when she sought intermittent unpaid leave in October 2012.
- The University declined to count additional unpaid intermittent absences as an accommodation and terminated Sedlacek on October 9, 2012 for violating the reinstatement agreement.
- Sedlacek sued under the Iowa Civil Rights Act for disability discrimination (failure to accommodate / qualified individual) and retaliation; the district court granted summary judgment for the University, and she appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sedlacek is a "qualified individual" under ICRA (can perform essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodation) | Sedlacek argued intermittent leave/accommodation (allowing missed days) would permit her to work despite depression flare-ups | University argued regular attendance is an essential function; Sedlacek’s chronic absenteeism (356 days missing) and open-ended intermittent leave request made her unqualified and accommodation unreasonable | Court held Sedlacek was not a qualified individual; intermittent/open-ended leave was not a reasonable accommodation given attendance as an essential function |
| Whether the requested accommodation (intermittent unpaid leave / reduced hours) was reasonable | Sedlacek contended additional unpaid intermittent leave would be a reasonable accommodation | University said intermittent/unlimited leave is not reasonable because it does not ensure return to regular attendance in the near future | Court held the requested accommodation was essentially indefinite intermittent leave and therefore unreasonable |
| Whether termination was discriminatory based on disability | Sedlacek claimed termination was due to disability-related absences | University maintained termination resulted from failure to meet attendance standards and breach of reinstatement agreement, not discriminatory animus | Court found no triable issue of discriminatory motive and affirmed summary judgment for University |
| Whether termination was retaliatory for requesting accommodations | Sedlacek asserted she engaged in protected activity (requesting accommodations) and was terminated in retaliation | University argued termination was for attendance violations and prior reinstatement agreement; no causal link to accommodation requests | Court held Sedlacek failed to show causal connection; summary judgment for University was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodpaster v. Schwan’s Home Serv., 849 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2014) (defines "qualified individual" and essential-function analysis under ICRA)
- Brannon v. Luco Mop Co., 521 F.3d 843 (8th Cir. 2008) (open-ended medical leave not a reasonable accommodation where it does not enable regular attendance)
- Tyndall v. Nat’l Educ. Ctrs., Inc. of Cal., 31 F.3d 209 (4th Cir. 1994) (regular and reliable attendance is an essential job function)
- Cisneros v. Wilson, 226 F.3d 1113 (10th Cir. 2000) (accommodation must enable performance in the near future; indefinite leave is unreasonable)
- Falczynski v. Amoco Oil Co., 533 N.W.2d 226 (Iowa 1995) (chronic absenteeism undermines qualification for employment)
- Cole v. Staff Temps, 554 N.W.2d 699 (Iowa 1996) (excessive absenteeism can justify termination)