The question of whether employers must accommodate workers who have trouble commuting to work due to a disability may lead to a U.S. Supreme Court decision. Recently, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals joined two other appellate courts, the Second and Third Circuit Courts, holding that the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) can, under certain circumstances, require an employer to provide an accommodation to a disabled worker who needs to get to and from work. The case, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) v. Charter Communications LLC, involved an employee who requested such an accommodation due to the employee’s inability to drive at night. The employee asked to, in essence, permanently change his schedule so he would not have to drive at night. Charter originally offered a 30-day schedule change, and then thereafter refused to keep the daytime schedule moving forward.

Previously, the Seventh Circuit was of the position that employers are not required to provide accommodations to eliminate transportation barriers to the extent they exist outside of the workplace. The Court even said that by doing so, it would amount to preferential treatment. In the Charter Communications case, the Seventh Circuit flipped its position on reasonable accommodations as they relate to transportation needs. The Seventh Circuit refined their earlier decision and declined to say that an employer never has a duty to accommodate how its employees with disabilities get to work.  Going further, the court stated, “if a qualified employee’s disability interferes with his ability to get to work, the employee may be entitled to a work-schedule accommodation if commuting to work is a prerequisite to an essential job function, such as attendance in the workplace, and if the accommodation is reasonable under all the circumstances.” 

Originally, the U.S. District Court granted judgment in favor of Charter, but the EEOC appealed.  The Seventh Circuit found the requested accommodation was not unreasonable, giving the employee’s circumstances and job with the particular employer. The employee’s vision impairment interfered with commuting to work safely, and attendance was an essential function of his job. 

Employers should be aware that there is presently a circuit split on the issue, with the Second, Third, and Seventh Circuits opening the door to potential transportation accommodations under the ADA. The Sixth and Tenth Circuits have held that an employer is not required to provide transportation-based accommodations. This presents an interesting dispute in federal appellate cases related to reasonable accommodation and may be prime for the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in.

The Supreme Court jurisprudence regarding the ADA is sparse – one of the only cases to analyze reasonable accommodation is US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (2002). In US Airways, the Supreme Court held that an employer’s showing that a requested accommodation conflicts with seniority rules is sufficient to show, as a matter of law, that a proposed accommodation is not reasonable. Otherwise, the Supreme Court has been hesitant to interpret reasonable accommodations under the ADA and have deferred to lower court interpretation. The above circuit split could be monumental to the landscape of ADA analysis. 

Ice Miller will stay up to date on the circuit split and when providing guidance, it will be good to know where each Circuit stands.  Please reach out to Sara Sams or any other members of the Ice Miller Workplace Solutions Practice Group regarding ADA compliance and reasonable accommodations.

This publication is intended for general information purposes only and does not and is not intended to constitute legal advice. The reader should consult with legal counsel to determine how laws or decisions discussed herein apply to the reader's specific circumstances.