You can’t always get … Why UPS won this job accommodation suit

A new federal appeals court ruling highlights an important rule about disability-related job accommodation under the ADA.

The rule: An employee is not entitled to their accommodation of choice, even if it is effective. Instead, an employer meets its job accommodation duty by offering any effective reasonable accommodation.

Two effective accommodations, and one is more expensive? The employer can provide the cheaper one.

Two accommodations that work, and the employee wants Option A but the employer prefers Option B? The employer can say, “Take Option B or leave it” — and meets its job accommodation duty by doing so.

The point was made in a ruling issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit earlier this month.

Job accommodation for driving needed

The plaintiff was Jay Hannah, a package delivery driver for UPS.

The trouble for Hannah started in December 2017, when he began to experience pain in his lower back, hip and buttocks. He was diagnosed as having hip bursitis.

When that happened, Hannah was assigned to a delivery route that required him to drive a truck that was big enough to carry all of the packages on his route. The size of that truck made for a bit of a rough ride that aggravated his injury.

UPS accommodated Hannah’s request for a more padded seat, but it did not help much and in October 2018 – after he had been working only sporadically — his physician diagnosed him as having sacroiliitis and said he could return to work.

Hannah then made further accommodation requests that eventually led to this suit: He asked for either a smaller vehicle that had a smoother ride, or a transfer to an “inside job” (like washing vehicles or sorting packages) until he was well enough to return to his route.

Employer denies requests

UPS thought about it but said no to both requests. A smaller vehicle would mean giving part of his route to another driver or forcing him to finish the route in multiple trips, and both things would violate the applicable collective bargaining agreement. And inside work was not an option because there were no openings for an inside job.

Instead, UPS let Hannah take unpaid time off until he could do his job. After several months off, Hannah returned to his route in the bigger truck.

After he got back to work, Hannah sued UPS to allege an ADA violation. He said UPS was obligated to provide him with one of the accommodations he wanted.

A lower court ruled against him, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed.

That’s not reasonable …

Hannah’s request for a smaller vehicle was not reasonable because it would not have allowed him to complete his route as required. Nor was his request for an inside job, because there was no vacancy for such a position.

In this case, Hannah did not show that the accommodations he sought were reasonable. This was because giving him a smaller vehicle would have violated the collective bargaining agreement and because no vacant inside positions were available.

… But even if it was …

But even if another reasonable accommodation was available, UPS still had the right to decide which accommodation to provide. “[I]t is well settled,” the court explained, “that the ‘ultimate discretion’ to choose among reasonable accommodations rests with the employer.”

Guidance from the EEOC, which is primarily responsible for enforcing the ADA’s employment provisions, bears this out as well.

Here’s a relevant Q&A from an EEOC guidance document:

Must an employer provide the reasonable accommodation that the individual wants?

The employer may choose among reasonable accommodations as long as the chosen accommodation is effective (i.e., it removes the workplace barrier at issue). The employer may offer alternative suggestions for reasonable accommodations to remove the workplace barrier in question. If there are two possible reasonable accommodations, and one costs more or is more difficult to provide, the employer may choose the one that is less expensive or easier to provide, as long as it is effective.

Thus, while the ADA mandates that employers engage in a good-faith, interactive process with their employees to find an effective reasonable accommodation, their job is done once an effective accommodation is found.

The bottom line

Remember: Your job under the ADA is to provide a reasonable accommodation – but this does not mean you must always provide an accommodation an applicant or employee prefers.

The case is Hannah v. United Parcel Service, Inc., No. 21-1647 (4th Cir. 7/10/23).