Kvorjak v. Maine, State of

II, F.Supp.2d Yankee Massachusetts. factor, the second evaluating the

at 88. Yankee customers .where evaluated

court Clinton, deceived, see allegedly

were 1265-66, concluded that

F.2d at outside Massa- them were majority of

vast II, at 88. F.Supp.2d Yankee

chusetts. weighed therefore

This factor court Finally, favor.

Bridgewater’s weighed factor the third

determined Yankee, the third

in favor Id. dispositive. not be alone could

factor 831). Roche, (citing

at 88-89 the district court’s concedes

Yankee oc- alleged conduct that the

determination substantially outside primarily

curred we unless reverse is correct

Massachusetts evidentiary decision. court’s

the district so, district court’s not done

As have 93A on the summary judgment

grant

claim is affirmed.

Y. Conclusion stated, judgments

For reasons are affirmed. court district Plaintiff, Appellant KVORJAK,

Brian

, v. Depart MAINE, Maine State Landry, Labor, R.

ment of Valerie State of Maine

Commissioner Defendants, Ap Labor,

Department of

pellees. 00-2385.

No. Appeals,

United States Court

First Circuit. 7,May

Heard Aug.

Decided

COFFIN, Judge. Senior Circuit Kvorjak claims Brian De the Maine employer, former that his Labor, failed wrongfully of partment disability when it refused accommodate home after his him to work at to allow was relocated and his office closed district court facility. The to a distant defen judgment for the summary granted claims,1 and state on his federal dants to offer that he had failed evi concluding he to demonstrate dence sufficient aspects of his accomplish “essential” 12111(8). § See 42 U.S.C. job at home. the record and a close review of After caselaw, we affirm. Background2

I. Factual appellant. Bates for Daniel W. aas re- partially paralyzed is Appellant bifida, had he has spina sult of condition Taub, Attorney Assistant Christopher C. ability limits his birth. The condition since Rowe, At- General, with whom G. Steven walk, with his problems causes bowels Herman, General, P. Susan torney and bladder, pain triggers and at times General, were brief Attorney on Assistant sits, Despite stands or lies down. when he appellees. for difficulties, successfully these in Maine agencies for various state worked Judge, LYNCH, Before Circuit the last seven and twenty-two years, for COFFIN, Judge, for as a claims Senior Circuit one-half of Division Unem- SCHWARZER, Department of Labor’s Judge.* District Senior * 780, Island, California, F.3d 788-89 sitting Rhode 160 of the Northern District Of of Maine, (1st 1998); v. by designation. Soileau Cir. Guilford of 37, (D.Me.1996), Inc., aff'd, F.Supp. 928 45 brought suit under the Americans 1. Thus, 12, 1997). (1st while ("ADA”), 105 14 Cir. F.3d 42 U.S.C. Act with Disabilities 12101-12213, explicitly ADA because it has refer to the Act of §§ the Rehabilitation 794, 1973, litigation to primary and the Maine Human focus this 29 U.S.C. been the ("MHRA”), §§ 4551- 5 M.R.S.A. Rights applicability Act of its point, and because of the law, this Supreme Court ruled earlier The body case accompanying of recent our Amendment immun year Eleventh solely applies to the here in fact discussion damages money states from claims izes claims. Rehabilitation Act and MHRA See Bd. Trs. Title I of ADA. under gen- simplicity, we Similarly the sake of Garrett, 356, 121 v. 531 U.S. Univ. Ala. collectively as erally "the refer to defendants 967-68, (2001); 148 L.Ed.2d 866 S.Ct. itself, State,” although to the State in addition P.R., Dep't Lopez v. Police Com. Acevedo Department of La- appellant sued the Maine Cir.2001). (1st case 28 This F.3d commissioner, bor, Val- department's and the both the MHRA remains viable under Act, however, Landry. stan erie and the Rehabilitation applicable of the three statutes each dards drawn al- background are of this Portions essentially same. been viewed have Health, well stated "Facts” verbatim from the most Dep’t P.R. v. See Oliveras-Sifre opinion. Cir.2000); magistrate judge’s (1st v. section 25 n. Feliciano F.3d (the “Division”). Field ployment locally Services to work would be highly appropri- position, In that most recent he was as- ate and medically indicated.” Rockland, Maine, office in signed to an rejected Division re- ten-minute commute from his home. quest, stating that the Department of La- mid-1990s, Division decided bor had with checked the New England expenses by closing to cut fifteen field Business and Technical Assistance Center offices, office, including the Rockland and and the Equal Employment Opportunity shifting services three call centers Commission and had “concluded that com- other of the state. parts To assist muting to the is not a activity covered transfer, the Division sent out two under [the] ADA.” It noted that had surveys asking employees they would received requests other from Division em- relocating to a call In consider center. ployees to work at home because of the surveys, appellant both indicated that he consolidation, office and had all of denied would able to work in a call center be State, however, them. The did offer to Bangor primary listed as his choice. pay if appellant relocation costs moved center, closer to a call a benefit 1997, however, provided Before the transfer in to all re-assigned employees, and also of- appellant ninety-minute drove the com- fered to pay temporary for Ap- housing.4 mute from his home to on Bangor two move, pellant to days. declined and he laid consecutive The drive re- was lengthy off in on June pain. day, sulted substantial That same Realizing that Dunford, Kathleen he could not commute three director of the every hours of Office Human day, applied disability Department, for a Resources for the he of- pension fered in a telephone asked that conversation permitted he be to use his to assist him in finding job. another local pension accumulated sick time until his request processed. was The State denied ap- October the State notified time, request his to use sick pellant of a opening Bangor for a (the Disability Rights contacted the Center same he —the “Center”). had left months earlier. four Center, interest,

After consultation with the ap- expressed again requested pellant May requested the accom- working accommodation of at home. working modation of a full- request home on The again was denied. Appellant time, permanent basis.3 He supplemented subsequently complaints filed with the his with a request physician letter from challenging original layoff his MHRC both the that stating Bangor every the commute to and the later failure to re-hire him. The day have a impact would detrimental on maintain State continued to that it had no The health. doctor also obligation stated to ameliorate com- “any difficulties; view, effort that can be made him muting allow in its to he was no lion, initially Department 3. Appellant although wrote to the il is not clear that this offer that, home, working Labor addition to was him. deposition, In his communicated "willing he any was to consider he said was unaware of an offer reloca he my accommodations which will con- result beyond by tion that received other assistance employment,” tinued but the record reflects employees. temporary housing, The offer for rejected any option later he than at- other however, explicitly was noted in a memoran home work. See note 9. infra investigator dum to for the Maine an Human ("MHRC”). Rights Commission prepared help arrange 4. The State also was support during appellant's services reloca: Process Interactive II. employees who from non-disabled different of work- accommodation sought the same substance delving into the Before of the inconvenience issue, appel home because address ing at § 4573-A the State violated the 5 M.R.S.A. lant’s contention relocating. See informal, an inter failing to utilize by ADA em- (“This prohibit an does subchapter to make an individualized process active individual ... an discharging from ployer and abilities. The of his needs assessment disability ... if the mental physical or state regulations implementing statute’s men- individual, physical because necessary for an “may” be that it at, remain to ... be is unable disability, tal employee dialogue with initiate a place where go to or from at or accom appropriate order determine per- are to be employment duties 1630.2(o)(3). 29 C.F.R. modation. See formed.”). investigator, how- The MHRC regulation construed Courts have appel- ever, determining whether without obligation. See various levels imposing the essential functions lant States, 228 F.3d Barnett v. United supervi- (relying on job at home (en banc) (9th Cir.2000) (citing 1111-14 re- could be statement sor’s cases), granted part petition cert. for found rea- required), if the law structured — Barnett, Airways v. U.S. sub nom US that appellant believe grounds to sonable 1600, —, 149 L.Ed.2d 121 467 S.Ct. disability to unlawful subjected been had 00-1250).5 (No. (2001) in the most Even discrimination. however, version, such as the rigorous “mandatory obligation” Ninth Circuit’s 1999, lawsuit June filed his cases, Hosps. v. Mem. Humphrey all see rejection of his asserting that the State’s (9th Cir.2001), Ass’n, 1128, 239 F.3d 1137 violated federal to work home request filed, cert. 69 U.S.L.W. 3792 petition for motion for disability laws. In a state 2001) (No. 00-1860), (U.S. 13, liability June argued that judgment, the State summary that, finding on a depends nonetheless had appel obliged to accommodate was not it occurred, process interactive good faith to work request because lant have found reasonable parties could disability from not from his stemmed enable the dis that would moving, and against personal preference job’s essential perform abled person any could emphasized functions, 239 F.3d at Humphrey, see the essential functions perform 1139; Barnett, event F.3d at 1115-16. 228 home. adjudicator position at taken so cate court has not This magistrate accepted court The district process, the interactive gorical a stand on summary judge’s recommendation the issue on a instead to preferring resolve defendants, and granted for judgment be Phelps Optima v. case-by-case basis. See dis review the appeal followed. We this (1st 21, Cir.2001); Inc., Health, F.3d 27 251 novo, assessing the de court’s trict decision Inst., Inc., Mass. Health Research Ward v. appel favorable to light (1st in the most Cir.2000); facts 29, n. 4 209 F.3d 33 v. Le lant, nonmoving party. Inc., Reed Group, 96 Clean-Up v. F.3d Jacques (1st (1st Cir.1996). Bakeries, Inc., Although 244 F.3d 257 we have Page may be situations in Cir.2001). noted that there seeking a employee who is reason- granted certiorari to consider disabled 5. The Court requires employer to an whether the ADA able accommodation. system reassigning a disregard seniority its engage failure to in the process performing which the claims “would constitute a failure to rea at the office Rockland with little no sonable accommodation that amounts to a accommodation for more than seven ADA,” Jacques, and, indeed, violation of the at years,6 F.3d the doctor who submit- 515; Garcia-Ayala see also v. Lederle ted a letter of support for his request saw Parenterals, Inc., 212 F.3d n. 12 problem “[no] with him engaging in the (1st Cir.2000) (reversing summary judg type of activities he has been doing....”7 ment for and granting judgment In a setting of institutional change, with employee company “simply where had requests to work at home from em- other rejected the request for the accommoda ployees commute, seeking to avoid the discussion,” tion without further but not inquiry and after statutory into require- deciding issue), process interactive ments,8 reject the State’s decision to also consider such an omission “of no mo accommodation based on com- ment” the record finding forecloses a mute does not demonstrate a disregard for plaintiff that the the duties obligations its under the ADA. It is unsur- job, with or without ac prising that state officials would out-of- commodation, see Exp. Soto-Ocasio v. Fed. reject hand such an accommodation if it 14, 19 (1st Cir.1998). Corp., ADA, were not required by the out of a legitimate allowing concern that him such law, being This the status of the arrangement precedent would set a appellant has failed to demonstrate an ac employees. other engage tionable failure to in interactive explain Moreover, communication. As we in the fol the State did communicate section, lowing the record cannot support appellant, a with making to efforts accommo- that finding he is able to perform disability the date his him offers to help adjudica essential functions of the claims both relocate job and search for a in new addition, tor at his home. In position addition, the Rockland area. In after the do view not the here to circumstances MHRC’s finding adverse in December constitute the extreme failure engage to Department of Labor offered meaningful dialogue that at him appellant joba in an By office Rockland. time, however, to tempts depict. appellant When asked that appellant felt he could to work at office,9 home because of longer the new com no reflecting work a distance, muting the State had no reason shift in single his focus from the issue of to suspect disability that his posed also his to inability commute to the additional issues related to office work. problems He had been presented by office work. The requested any stated that he deposition, never 9.In his he stated that he learned accommodation, while the maintains State from medical consultation that continued that it allowed him to take than the more full-time office work would his accelerate during day. standard number of breaks time, physical It was at that he deterioration. said, "when I made the firm determination doctors, appellant’s again that I not Stephan Another would work unless it was in Bamberger, deposition testified in Stephan Bamberger his in No- the home.” Dr. testified vember that there was no medical rea- deposition that a ten-minute commute—as why Bangor. he could not son move to appellant had in had Rockland —would not significantly longevity affect the of his work- life, ing working 8. We do not address here that in an office whether the advice would given pose to pain the State—that the ADA does not difficulties because of his in- and commuting cover issues—was correct. continence. not sum, here do the circumstances however, gone beyond State, had engage egregious failure to assert show an of the commute issue job could now turn to con- appellant’s process. We functions interactive essential his home. required at the law performed not be sider whether the accommodation appellant provide the State’s behav- say that This is not to working at home. discussion A face-to-face ideal. was ior un- complete a more allowed might have and issues on needs

derstanding of the Functions III. Essential under- and avoided both sides Accommodation Reasonable treat- frustration ill sense of standable ADA, a under the To relief obtain however, too, must Appellant, ment.10 that: must demonstrate plaintiff inadequate responsibility some bear argu- at counsel oral His communication. (1) meaning within the was disabled he exceptional his clear made ment (2) Act; qualified indi- he was of the portion for at least performance vidual, the essential i.e. able to adjudicator was as a claims tenure with without functions of physical sacrifices. significant without (3) accommodation; and he shows, Yet, record the State so far as the disability. of his discharged because was to know extraordi- no reason had Ward, at 33. The State concedes taking mini- been nary measures he had statutory defini- meets the appellant working at the difficulties mize on disability. dispute centers tion of Reed, 244 F.3d office. See Rockland qual- he was a inquiry, whether second for accommoda- (employee’s request “ par- ADA.12The under the ified individual spe- ‘sufficiently direct must be tion ” here is whether we face question ticular employer with notice cific’ the essential func- “perform can need); Interpretive EEOC disability-based the accommo- given position” tions of the Guidance, app. Pt. 29 C.F.R. seeks, working at home. The he dation (“In respon- ... it is the general, 1630.9 a matter of law court concluded as district disability with a to sibility of the individual not, based on the State’s that could he that an accommoda-' the inform important functions evidence that several needed.”).11 under- is Had State tion by adjudicators could claims performed need appellant’s at the outset that stood appellant’s home. accomplished not be not, fact, limited was accommodation the State both Appellant contends doubt commuting, there is no reason to to reasonably can be what underestimates progressed would have interaction setting improperly a home done in differently. appel- recognize least some of We that at State example, raised concerns 10.For desire to retain stemmed a lant's silence from confidentiality expense related about concerning physical his privacy a level of work, fully explore did not them but at-home however, be employer, cannot An difficulties. Similarly, appellant counsel. or his with knowing responsible information held rejecting internally before concluded employee disability that deliberate- about request at that the to work ly to withhold. chooses adjudicator of a claims functions essential home, did performed at not be but appellant fails we conclude 12. Because in its address that issue communications not individual, qualified is that he establish until la- or his counsel much court, we, reach do the district not like ter. prima of the facie case. third element

55 func- scriptions, consequences characterizes as “essential” certain requiring not function, require setting. tions that an office experience work past in- cumbents, and experience work of current recently We have confirmed that Ward, incumbents.” 209 F.3d at (citing 34 plaintiff proposing bears the burden of 1630.2(n)(3)). § 29 C.F.R. that would him enable is, job perform effectively at The record contains both a “Task State- things, least on the face of reasonable. adjudicator ment” for the position claims Reed, 26; Phelps, F.3d at F.3d at processing at a center and a list labeled necessarily showing 258. This entails a “Essential Functions of a Adjudica- Claims effectively that the accommodation “would tor,” the latter of which is simply a short- Reed, perform job,” [him] [his] enable ened version of the former. The task starting point, F.3d at 259. As a items, statement contains nine and six of therefore, appellant must offer evidence them are identified as essential functions that he can the essential functions in the other document. The first three adjudicator of a home. This “essential” generally job tasks describe the turns out to be both the and the beginning of adjudicating claims—what we shall call analysis. end of our “adjudicator function”13—and the other provision three involve the of information An “essential function” is a fun and guidance variety to a of individuals job duty damental at issue. both inside and outside the Division—in Ward, 34; See 209 F.3d at 29 C.F.R. shorthand, our the “advisor function.”14 1630.2(n)(l). § The term does include tasks, “marginal” focuses on the may encompass “in function and maintains that idiosyncratic dividual or there is at characteristics” Ward, least a factual job, dispute as to whether it can (quoting 209 F.3d at 34 performed by be him at Laurin v. his home. He Hosp., Providence (1st 56-57, Cir.1998)). plausibly contends that he could conduct 59 n. 6 In the ab home, by telephone interviews write discriminatory sence of evidence of ani mus, decisions, and generally give necessary courts enter all data into “substantial weight” employer’s judgment personal computer. to the Although as to the State Id.; what are functions essential. see also has raised concerns about the confidentiali- 12111(8). ty U.S.C. might Other evidence also of records that be needed in the relevant, is including: decision-making process, “written de- its counsel ac- laws, Explains 13. These are: regulations, three tasks commission rules, precedents, department policies and claimants, employers, 1. Interview and regarding eligibility, disqualifications and by telephone witnesses to obtain relevant claimants, appeals employers, and the facts in order to determine a claimant's general public provide in order to informa- eligibility compensation and which em- program. tion on the account, ployer any, charged. if is to be disposition 5. Discusses claim of the with 2. Writes clear and concise decisions in claimants, employers, their autho- and/or parties order to enable interested to deter- representatives rized in order to unemployment compen- mine the basis for information on the basis for the determina- sation benefits determination and which process tion and on the of initiation of an account, any, charged. if will be appeal. 3. Enters decisions and related data into specialists employ- 6. Assists claims and p.c. produce in order written record of security ment aides in functions of their the decision. respective classifications which relates [sic] adjudication 14. These three duties are: activities. Boyett explained the role a week. that once argument knowledged at oral follows: if it were be met perhaps could concern Indeed, appears Day primary it the are the Adjudicators of only obstacle.

the trouble-shooting responsible decision-mak- people of Labor Department other day. confiden- resolution for problem at home with and routinely work ers in visible loca- documents, posted a full time are not on Their names albeit tial the call so that Moreover, no evidence that within centers there is tions basis. go to know who to with be made on claims staff must benefits decisions the They remain deadlines, problems. and gaining questions ac- extremely tight they help can other accessible so that the office or within kept at to records cess employees’ other employees at the system computer Division’s secure example, For needed. workstations feasible.15 logistically thus seem would help another adjudicators might claims may be the adjudicating claims Although com- conduct research on the employee posi- former function of core database, employee’s into an plug puter adjudicator” title— its “claims tion-Aience call, telephone with a telephone to assist large both advisor function looms of a call at their own portion or take a the testi- written task statement problem before to resolve workstation by the State. presented evidence monial the call back to the other transferring affidavit, Boyett described the lengthy aIn terminating the call. employee services from of the Division’s transition that, further since the Boyett stated offices, one such as the field decentralized centers, adjudicators change to call Rockland, in which worked served as a technical re- have more often model,” which consolidated “call center because employees for other source offices operations three Division’s was reduced from supervisors number of In the call serving a statewide clientele. statewide, making them to six seventeen claims are system, unemployment center Al- questions. for individual less available auto- telephone via and routed submitted be assistance could though some this three centers in a matically to one of the primarily provid- “it is provided by phone, equalize workloads intended to manner usually requires person ed in because among the locations. materials, includ- jointly reviewing written sections, forms, documents, adjudicators pri- are “the most sen- law ing Claims ior, claim cards.” mary resource” commission non-supervisory technical cases centers, resulting adjudicators participate function call and one Claims of claims staff at the call training is to serve as technical experienced from that status approximately centers.16 “Adjudicator Day” hand, reported that both individuals the State maintains affidavit On the other present "fully occupied their duties would be difficult for an are that such research not have to take on additional manage impos- and do time employee to without at-home 12112(b)(5)(A) (an 42 U.S.C. duties.” See employees ing burden on an undue employer accommoda- provide need not an requires physical access to office because impose "an undue hard- files, tion that would unemploy- to as well as the access paper ship”). An at-home em- ment insurance database. rely ployee on others to thus would have find, Boyett call center envi- "[t]he stated that copy, and mail documents. As needed 16. provides ability to offer staff the Division’s call centers ronment of December frequently each center peo- training more because supported by only two clerical staff were Division, covering another capability ple. Boyett, has the of Laura of director essence, Boyett’s depicts this role either is not affidavit essential or adjudicators key players performed by on a could be him at home. claims He emphasizes by function is to informa- a statement made team whose Gail Thayer, in public utilizing and assistance to the director of the Bureau of Unem tion (which system. ployment Compensation insurance unemployment includes Division), it, system on-the-spot requires often relies on collabo- that “if the law vari- among Kvorjak’s rative efforts the call center’s could restructure Mr. [State] adjudicators job and claims are him employees, ous to enable to work at home.” particularly participants state, however, vital because of Thayer did not high their level of technical skill. See 29 resulting position would include all of a 1630.2(n)(2)(ii) (a job function functions, C.F.R. adjudicator’s claims essential may and, be considered essential “because of indeed, deposition she testified at her available employees the limited number not, fact, that she did envision that such among performance whom the of that a restructuring would retain all of the distributed”). function can be The State’s important appellant’s job. elements of that, definition, by position is the advisor require The law does not training joint prob- function includes disability by “accommodate a foregoing an lem-solving accomplished that could not be essential function of the position by effectively by adjudicator a claims based reallocating essential functions to make call outside of the center. See EEOC jobs other workers’ more onerous.” Feli Enforcement Ac- Guidance: Reasonable ciano, 785; Phelps, 160 F.3d at see also and Undue Under Hardship commodation Laurin, 26; 251 F.3d at 150 F.3d at Act, the Americans with Disabilities Appellant’s regarding other contentions 1999) (March 1, at *34 n. 93 WL the State’s evidence are no more forceful. (“Courts rejected working that have complains He that numerous functions list- home as a focus reasonable accommodation summary ed as essential the State’s contact, personal on evidence that interac- judgment materials both new to the were tion, and coordination are needed for a adjudica- peripheral case and to the claims cases).17 position.”) (citing specific job, legitimacy tor’s and their must be In response by simple to the State’s evi resolved a factfinder. The re- sponse dence that the advisor function is an “es to the tardiness claim is that the part adjudicator’s job, directly sential” of a advisor role derives from the list claims Statement,18 specific showing offers no facts of duties the Task which training taking place. possibility connecting center while is Staff the record about the training given high priority is now because appellant's phone call Division's goals center, one of the of the call center transition is explore but we need not that issue improve consistency procedures ap- because our conclusion that the record plication throughout law state.” unequivocally proves that a claims otherwise per- work at the center to must adjudica- 17. We have focused on the claims aspects of the advisor form essential function. tor's duties as advisor to other call center staff role, itself, by because that demonstrates that functions, the list essential see Item on performed cannot be at home. provid- supra, refers to the assistance note aspects specifi- Other advisor function — by adjudicators ed to other claims staff cally, providing explanations and information members. This item embraces most of the public using to the and to those the unem- Boyett supervisory and educational tasks ployment compensation system might be — adjudicators. attributed to claims technology feasible in a home if the cost were prohibitive. There is much discussion adjudicator a claims the MHRC. essential functions of used as an exhibit before was Boyett spells affidavit out Although the at home. many ways the first time

detail for adjudicator expected is which a claims IV. Conclusion function, possibili- perform the advisor demonstrates without mean- record advisory that a task is unim- ty particular ingful dispute that the essential functions portant reasonably performed could be per- of a claims cannot be home does not under- at an individual’s employee’s at an individual home. formed position mine the that the claims State’s grant summary affirm the We therefore adjudicator’s in-office role edu- judgment for defendants. essential. is cator/trainer/advisor Affirmed. suggesting offers no evidence Appellant that, despite the written task statement SCHWARZER, Judge, Senior District departmental expectations out- and dissenting: affidavit, Boyett lined the advisor actuality comprises insignifi- function in respectfully problem I dissent. The adjudicator’s job. portion cant of a claims this case is that the had made State knowledge limit- His own is reject Kvorjak’s request to up its mind to experience working ed a field considering work at home without even provides office and thus ba- insufficient a whether accommodation Boyett’s sis to rebut assertion that Thus, in responding could be worked out. important advisor function became more request, rejected to his initial the State it after the consolidation of services in call ground “commuting job on the to the have, centers.19 did activity is not a covered under ADA.” It not, depose adjudicators current claims Kvorjak’s any did not consider medical their duties. about (nor it request any), information did did not conduct a cost assessment of his Finally, appellant tries to make much of Instead, working from home. the State Department the fact that two of Labor Kvorjak’s advised counsel that it was not employees permitted have been to work home, him having interested work at home. The significantly evidence shows and it is clear from the record that no (1) distinguishable circumstances: the em- ever considered. Un- was ployees, experienced allergic- who both til litigation, the commencement of the type reactions to substances in their office position. adhered to this initial It State building, being permitted are to work at only was when the filed its motion until only Department is able to summary judgment presented, that it construct a “clean room” at the workplace; (2) way by Boyett, of the affidavit of Laura adjudicator— neither is a claims litany Kvorjak job why reasons would not organize one’s is to and the other files perform is a tax be able to the essential functions specialist primary duty whose is to employers call of his at home. This court has said unemployment who owe employees employee’s request “[a]n taxes. The fact these reason- support appel- requires great work at home lends no able accommodation deal lant’s contention that he could the employee communication between interrogato- by performing receptionist 19. In his answers to defendants’ the duties of a ries, appellant acknowledged others, that even at the my covered for boss and etc.” field office he would "cover for other workers

59 Inc., Jacques Clean-Up Group, v. re 96 F.3d parties ... both bear employer Cir.1996).1 (1st 506, accom determining what sponsibility for 515 v. IBM necessary.” Criado modation is I would reverse and remand for trial. Cir.1998) (1st 437, 444 Corp., 145 F.3d Wayne Cmty. Fort Bultemeyer v. (quoting (7th Cir.1996));

Schs., 1281, F.3d 1285 100 v. Lederle Paren Garcia-Ayala

see (1st Inc.,

terals, 638, 12 212 F.3d 648 n.

Cir.2000). essentially Here there was

none. the omission

This a case which is not can be said to be of of such communication America, STATES of UNITED Express v. Fed. Soto-Ocasio moment. no Cf. Appellee, Cir.1998). (1st 14, rp., 19 Co v. duty to “mak[e] The State does have ... unless accommodations reasonable [it] Wiese, SCHWARZ, Thomas Charles the accommodation can demonstrate Bruder, and Thomas Defendants- hardship an undue on the impose would Appellants, 42 business.” U.S.C. operation [its] 12112(b)(5)(A). Kvorjak’s supervisor’s Volpe A. and Michael Justin deposition, that the law testimony on Bellomo, Defendants. required could be restructured 00-1479, and 00-1515. Nos. 00-1483 at home and confiden enable him to work with the tiality concerns and connections Appeals, United States Court resolved, raises a tri center could be call Second Circuit. Moreover, the adamant able issue. State’s consider and from the outset refusal 19, Argued July 2001. a triable is accommodation raises discuss July Decided complied whether it its sue as to ADA. the State obligation under the What precisely here is what the

did Garcia-Ayala: simply rejected “It

did for the accommodation without request so without

further did discussion making the accommo

pointing any facts needs.” harmful to its business

dation n. 12.

Garcia-Ayala, 212 F.3d at 648 This which

“may [a] ] well be situation! in an informal

employer’s engage failure to a fail process would constitute

interactive

ure to of the ADA.”

that amounts to violation commodating computer programmer with request parenthetically I note that the regarded multiple by allowing as outland her to work at cannot be work sclerosis Reno, Langon Dep't and Hu home); v. Health ish. See F.3d Carr v. see also (D.C.Cir. Servs., F.2d 1994). man (D.C.Cir. 1992) agency ac (holding that must consider

Case Details

Case Name: Kvorjak v. Maine, State of

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Date Published: Aug 9, 2001

Citation: 259 F.3d 48

Docket Number: 00-2385

Court Abbreviation: 1st Cir.