A recent Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Yanick v. Kroger Co. of Michigan expanded an employer’s responsibility in responding to requests for accommodation by employees with disabilities.

Working in the Bakery

The case involved Mary Ellen Yanick, who was the manager of a supermarket bakery for over fifteen years. In early 2018, Ms. Yanick was diagnosed with breast cancer and began to experience difficulties performing her job. After a four-month medical leave due to her cancer, which included surgery, Ms. Yanick returned to work in her former managerial position in the bakery with no restrictions. Soon after her return, Ms. Yanick told her supervisor that she was having difficulty performing some job functions and needed some time to get back to normal. Her supervisor told her that if she could not handle the job, she could step down to a lower position. Yanick wound up transferring the next week to a different department, then to a different store altogether, to a job with less responsibility and less money. Yanick then sued Kroger for failure to accommodate, disability discrimination, and retaliation claims.

Yanick’s Claims

Yanick argued that Kroger discriminated against her based on her disability (breast cancer). She claimed that the negative treatment she received from her supervisors was due to her medical condition. Yanick also claimed that Kroger retaliated against her for asserting her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The failure to accommodate claim was the most controversial issue in the case. Under the ADA, employers are required to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities, unless doing so would cause undue hardship. Yanick claimed Kroger failed to do so.

The Sixth Circuit Ruling

While a bright-line rule for determining when an employee has requested an accommodation for a disability does not exist, the Sixth Circuit court held that Ms. Yanick met this burden. The court stated that when they evaluate a failure to accommodate claim, they conduct a general assessment to determine if the employee communicated a need for an adjustment at work because of a disability. The court also noted that an employee does not need to use specific words such as “accommodation” or “disability” when they make their request in order to meet this burden. Furthermore, the court emphasized that an employer must draw a reasonable inference from what an employee says based on the context of the situation. An employee is not required to connect her requests to her medical restrictions in order to succeed on a failure to accommodate claim. Ms. Yanick used phrases such as “[she] needed some time to get back to normal” and that she “was struggling.” The court held that under the context of Ms. Yanick’s recent breast cancer diagnosis and her use of those phrases, a jury could reasonably conclude that Ms. Yanick was requesting a reduced work schedule, which is considered a reasonable accommodation. Interestingly enough, the Court did not find enough evidence to support the discrimination claim or the retaliation claim.

What Does This Mean for Employers?

The Yanick case shows employers need to realize that certain situations that seem innocuous at the time can become big problems if they are not given extra consideration, as in this case. There are several takeaways for employers to consider:

• Employers need to pay attention to reasonable inferences from employees regarding their difficulties at work, even if requests are not evident at first blush.
• Employers should consistently document an employee’s performance and reasons for struggles with job performance.
• Employers should engage in clear communication between employees and employers, particularly around medical concerns. The ADA calls for an “interactive process” when ADA concerns arise. Both parties should avail themselves of the interactive process to avoid issues in the future.
• Providing ongoing training for managers and HR staff on recognizing and preventing discriminatory practices as it relates to potential ADA claims.

The Sixth Circuit ruling may influence future ADA-related cases by setting a higher standard for what constitutes a reasonable accommodation request. Employers might need to revisit their policies and procedures to ensure they are in compliance with this evolving legal landscape.