By increasing the burden plaintiffs must overcome in failure-to-accommodate cases, Beasley represents good news for employers in the Eleventh Circuit, which covers
The Lawsuit and Eleventh Circuit's Decision
In Beasley, the plaintiff worked for
In
In
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 overall. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reversed summary judgment for O'Reilly, concluding there was a material issue of fact as to whether the denied accommodation led to a lower pay increase—a form of adverse employment action. However, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the requirement that plaintiffs in failure-to-accommodate claims prove an adverse employment action.
Circuit Split
The Eleventh Circuit's ruling in Beasley is part of a growing split among federal courts. In 2020, the Tenth Circuit ruled an adverse employment action is not a requirement for a failure-to-accommodate claim,4 whereas, in contrast, two years earlier, the Eighth Circuit indicated a failure-to-accommodate claim requires an adverse employment action.5 A federal judge in the
Although the
What Should Employers Expect After Beasley?
Following Beasley, employers should continue to consult with their employment counsel to understand the risks of denying an accommodation request. Until the Supreme Court clarifies the applicable standard for failure-to-accommodate claims, risk exposure will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
While Beasley grants employers in
Finally, employers must continue to evaluate each situation individually, avoiding a one-size-fits-all approach to accommodation requests. Training Human Resources specialists on recommended practices can be instrumental for helping decrease risk.
*
Footnotes
1. 69 F.4th 744 (11th Cir. 2023).
2. Id. at 754.
3. See Exby-Stolley v. Bd. Of Cty. Comm'rs, 979 F.3d 784 (10th Cir. 2020).
4. See Exby-Stolley, 979 F.3d at 795.
5. See Moses v.
6. See Leone v. Caddo Parish, No. 19-309, 2022 WL 437738, at *10-11 (
7. Id.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Mr
Littler Mendelson
20th Floor
California
CA 94108-2693
Tel: 213443-4245
Fax: 213443-4299
E-mail: JKlein@littler.com
URL: www.littler.com
© Mondaq Ltd, 2023 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source