Denise Freeman, sued her former employer, the City of Cheyenne, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) following her termination. Freeman’s claims centered on the denial of reasonable accommodation and discriminatory discharge under the ADA.
Factual Overview
Denise Freeman began working for the City of Cheyenne as the Human Resources Director in February 2016. Following the election of a new Mayor, Marian Orr, in January 2017, Freeman’s working relationship with Orr deteriorated, resulting in Freeman experiencing severe anxiety, burn-out, exhaustion, and other symptoms. In response, Freeman sought medical treatment and was granted a total of twelve weeks of leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), initially for six weeks, which was then extended for another six weeks upon recommendation from her health care provider. As her FMLA leave was concluding, Freeman requested additional leave from the City, which was denied due to lack of physician’s approval, and her employment was subsequently terminated.
Legal Analysis
ADA Claims and Prima Facie Requirements: To succeed in her ADA claims, Freeman needed to demonstrate that she was “otherwise qualified” for her position, which involves showing that with or without reasonable accommodation, she could perform the essential functions of her employment. The focus of the court was whether Freeman could perform her job’s essential functions at the time of the requested accommodation or adverse employment action.
The Interactive Process and Reasonable Accommodations: Freeman’s primary arguments were that the district court erred in determining she was not otherwise qualified due to her failure to provide an expected duration of her impairment in her request for additional leave. She contended that her request should have triggered the City’s duty to engage in an interactive process to explore potential accommodations, including additional leave. However, the court held that even if an employer does not engage in the interactive process, the plaintiff must demonstrate that a reasonable accommodation was possible. In Freeman’s case, the proposed accommodations—additional leave, reassignment, remote work, and part-time work—were deemed unreasonable because they either did not address the essential job functions or were not feasible accommodations given her inability to work.
Essential Functions and Accommodations: The court analyzed Freeman’s proposed accommodations against the essential functions of her job, notably physical attendance for a minimum of 40 hours per week and the ability to interact with co-workers. The court found that none of Freeman’s proposed accommodations would have enabled her to perform these essential functions. Specifically, the court rejected the notion that additional leave without a defined return date, reassignment without identifying a specific vacant position, remote work, and part-time work could constitute reasonable accommodations under the ADA. In conclusion, the court affirmed the district court’s decision, granting summary judgment in favor of the City of Cheyenne and dismissing Freeman’s ADA claims with prejudice.
Schrag on Law 