Eleventh Circuit Holds Adverse Employment Action Is Required In ADA Failure-To-Accommodate Claims

• Jurisdiction: United States,Federal
• Law Firm: Littler Mendelson
• Subject Matter: Employment and HR, Discrimination, Disability & Sexual Harassment, Employee Rights/ Labour Relations
• Author: Mr Alan Persaud and Rocio Blanco Garcia
• Published date: 15 August 2023

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in Beasley v. O'Reilly Auto Parts, recently held that a claim for failure-to-accommodate under the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) must include an adverse employment action.¹ That is, "discrimination in the form of a failure to reasonably accommodate is actionable under the ADA only if that failure negatively impacts the employee's hiring, advancement, discharge, compensation, training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of his employment."²

By increasing the burden plaintiffs must overcome in failure-to-accommodate cases, Beasley represents good news for employers in the Eleventh Circuit, which covers Florida, Georgia, and Alabama. The long-term impact of Beasley, however, is unclear. Currently, federal appellate courts are split on whether an adverse employment action is necessary for a failure-to-accommodate claim to stand,³ and if the United States Supreme Court chooses to address this split, the Eleventh Circuit's heightened standard could prove short-lived.

The Lawsuit and Eleventh Circuit's Decision

In Beasley, the plaintiff worked for O'Reilly Auto Parts as a warehouse worker. He is deaf and can understand only approximately 30% of verbal communication. As a result, he relies on American Sign Language (ASL) for communication. Upon hiring, O'Reilly agreed to provide the plaintiff an ASL interpreter when needed.

In August 2017, the plaintiff was disciplined for poor attendance, and when he requested an interpreter for his disciplinary meeting, O'Reilly failed to provide one. The plaintiff then received a documented verbal warning, and his subsequent performance review reflected a lower attendance score than he had previously received. Because O'Reilly relied on performance reviews in issuing merit-based pay increases, the plaintiff's lower score meant he did not qualify for as high of a raise as he would have otherwise received.

In January 2018, the plaintiff resigned from his position as warehouse worker and filed suit in the Southern District of Alabama, claiming O'Reilly had discriminated against him under Title I of the ADA by failing to reasonably accommodate him.

The trial court granted summary final judgment in favor of O'Reilly, reasoning that the plaintiff failed to show he had suffered an adverse employment action. Specifically, the court noted, in relevant part, an interpreter would not have improved the plaintiff's attendance score or resulted in better performance reviews...