993 F.3d 873
10th Cir.2021Background
- Joan Unrein worked ~20 years as a Clinical Dietitian at Colorado Plains Medical Center; she lived ~60 miles from the hospital and became legally blind (vitelliform macular dystrophy), which prevented her from driving.
- The Medical Center purchased in-office magnifying equipment; Unrein’s disability did not impair job tasks once she was onsite, but she could not reliably secure transportation and thus could not guarantee regular, predictable on-site attendance.
- Unrein obtained a temporary flexible schedule to accommodate transportation, subject to communication with her supervisor and a requirement to work at least 32 hours/week with most hours on-site; the arrangement failed because her attendance remained unpredictable and patient satisfaction and performance ratings declined.
- Unrein later sought reinstatement of the flexible schedule and then sought full-time telecommuting; the Medical Center denied telecommuting because the position required several hours per day of in-person, face-to-face patient interactions and timely in-person consults.
- After extended medical leave, approval for long-term disability, and no return-to-work date, the Medical Center terminated Unrein; she sued under the ADA and Colorado law alleging failure to accommodate, and the district court entered judgment for the Medical Center after a bench trial. The Tenth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Unrein's Argument | Medical Center's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether physical presence on a set, predictable schedule is an essential function of the Clinical Dietitian position | Unrein argued the district court erred and that a full-time schedule finding (or similar) is not an essential function | The Medical Center argued essential functions include in-person patient care and predictable on-site presence (at least ~4 hours/day) to meet patient-care timing and duties | Court held: physical presence on a set, predictable schedule is an essential job function; district court’s finding affirmed |
| Whether Unrein’s requested accommodation (an unpredictable/flexible schedule to accommodate transportation) was reasonable under the ADA | Unrein argued the Medical Center unreasonably rescinded the flexible schedule and must accommodate her disability-related transportation needs | Medical Center argued the request sought relief from an essential function and addressed a non-work transportation barrier the employer is not required to fix | Court held: request was unreasonable as a matter of law because it sought relief from an essential job function and sought to remedy a non-work transportation barrier; employer had no ADA obligation to accommodate it |
Key Cases Cited
- PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (Supreme Court 2001) (describing ADA coverage and anti-discrimination framework)
- Hennagir v. Utah Dep’t of Corr., 587 F.3d 1255 (10th Cir. 2009) (elements for ADA employment claim)
- Punt v. Kelly Servs., 862 F.3d 1040 (10th Cir. 2017) (an accommodation that relieves an employee of an essential job function is not reasonable)
- Mason v. Avaya Commc’ns, Inc., 357 F.3d 1114 (10th Cir. 2004) (deference to employer’s judgment on essential functions when job-related and consistently enforced)
- Davidson v. Am. Online, Inc., 337 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2003) (courts must consider employer’s judgment in essential-function analysis)
- Regan v. Faurecia Auto. Seating, Inc., 679 F.3d 475 (6th Cir. 2012) (employer not required to accommodate an employee’s commute change outside the workplace)