No Duty to Accommodate Employee Who Isn’t Qualified for Job

Topics: Court Decisions, Discrimination, Harassment & Retaliation, Employee Hiring, Discipline & Termination

In Johnson v. Board of Trustees, the Ninth Circuit elaborated on the limits of an employer’s duty to accommodate a disabled employee.  Trish Johnson was a special education teacher in Idaho with a history of depression and bipolar disease.  Johnson’s position required a state teaching certificate, which in turn required certified teachers to meet a minimum level of continuing education credits in a five year period.  When her contract came up for renewal in the fall of 2007, Johnson had not completed the continuing education requirements because she suffered a major depressive episode over the summer, so she petitioned the school board to seek provisional authorization from the state to allow her to teach temporarily without a license.  The Board denied her request because 1) she had five years to obtain the credits and 2) the Board only petitioned the state when there was no certified teacher available to fill a position.  A certified teacher was available and was hired.

Johnson brought suit for disability discrimination, a suit summarily dismissed by the trial court.  On review by the Ninth Circuit, the Court agreed that Johnson's claim should be dismissed.  The Court held that in order to prevail on a claim for disability discrimination or failure to accommodate, the plaintiff must establish that she was a "qualified individual with a disability."  To establish this, the plaintiff must show that she 1) has the experience, education and skills required by the job and 2) can perform the essential functions of the job, with or without a reasonable accommodation.  The Board argued that Johnson failed to establish that she met the requirements of the job, and there was therefore no need to accommodate her disability.  Johnson countered that because she could have obtained her teaching certificate with an accommodation of additional time, the Board was required to accommodate her ability to obtain her teaching certificate.  The Court disagreed, and held that there is no duty to accommodate an employee’s efforts to meet the job skills requirement.  By way of a straightforward example, the Court noted that under the EEOC guidelines, a law firm that requires incoming attorneys to be members of the bar need not accommodate a visually impaired attorney who fails to pass the bar exam.  On the other hand, the firm is required to provide a reasonable accommodation to a visually impaired –  but otherwise qualified – bar member.  Simply summarized, guidance by the EEOC “explicitly disclaims any requirement of providing reasonable accommodation to disabled individuals who fail to meet the job prerequisites on their own.” 
Since the job requirement itself was neither discriminatory nor had a disparate impact on disabled individuals, the district court’s ruling was allowed to stand.  The Johnson case is available here.