An Employer's Job Description of "Essential Job Functions" Carries Great Weight
What constitutes an "essential job function" under the Americans with Disabilities Act? It is a question that the courts grapple with everyday because it is a critical element of any disability discrimination claim. Well, the federal court for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has recently answered the question and has decided that an employer's judgment carries great weight in making the determination. The court held that the job description by the employer, not the employee's specific experience on the job, is what counts most.
In Knutson v. Schwan's Home Service Inc. (April 2013) an employee was terminated after two years on the job on the ground that the employer claimed that the employee was no longer able to meet the physical standards described in his job description. The employee sued under the ADA alleging discrimination. He claimed that he rarely drove a commercial vehicle as part of his normal job duties, and so, when he suffered a serious eye injury and could not obtain Department of Transportation certification to drive a commercial vehicle (a requirement in his job description), he could nevertheless perform "the essential job functions" of his work. His termination, he claimed, therefore violated the ADA. The employer, however, proved that the employee's ability to drive a commercial vehicle was essential to the job no matter how infrequently this ability was used, and that it was listed in the job description as a qualification for the position.
The Eighth Circuit agreed with the employer and held that the job description is what counts when determining whether an employee can perform the essential functions of the job.
Whether or not state or federal courts in New York presently agree with the Eighth Circuit, the decision underscores the importance of clear, complete and up-to-date job descriptions, and documented business-related reasons for decisions affecting employees. Being able to document a consistent application of job requirements and the necessity of those requirements will bring employer's one step closer to successfully defending against a disability discrimination claim under the ADA.
In Knutson v. Schwan's Home Service Inc. (April 2013) an employee was terminated after two years on the job on the ground that the employer claimed that the employee was no longer able to meet the physical standards described in his job description. The employee sued under the ADA alleging discrimination. He claimed that he rarely drove a commercial vehicle as part of his normal job duties, and so, when he suffered a serious eye injury and could not obtain Department of Transportation certification to drive a commercial vehicle (a requirement in his job description), he could nevertheless perform "the essential job functions" of his work. His termination, he claimed, therefore violated the ADA. The employer, however, proved that the employee's ability to drive a commercial vehicle was essential to the job no matter how infrequently this ability was used, and that it was listed in the job description as a qualification for the position.
The Eighth Circuit agreed with the employer and held that the job description is what counts when determining whether an employee can perform the essential functions of the job.
Whether or not state or federal courts in New York presently agree with the Eighth Circuit, the decision underscores the importance of clear, complete and up-to-date job descriptions, and documented business-related reasons for decisions affecting employees. Being able to document a consistent application of job requirements and the necessity of those requirements will bring employer's one step closer to successfully defending against a disability discrimination claim under the ADA.
