By Sarah Bowers

The employee had worked for the City of Anderson Transit System (CATS) for 28 years when his employment was terminated in 2012 because he was unable to hold a commercial driver's license (CDL).

Despite the employer's arguments to the contrary—and even though possessing a CDL was included in the former employee's job description—the jury agreed with him that having a CDL wasn't an essential function of his job. Let's see why the 7th Circuit also agreed with that determination.

Facts

Jack Brown started his tenure with CATS as a bus driver, a position that required him to have a CDL, which he obtained. In 1998, Brown was promoted to a dispatcher position. Unfortunately, while he was a dispatcher, he developed diabetes and began taking insulin. Accordingly, he had to give up his CDL. Luckily for him, the dispatcher position didn't require him to maintain a CDL.

After Anderson elected a new mayor in 2004, Brown was demoted to a mechanic's helper position. The job description for a mechanic's helper listed having a CDL as a job qualification. Nevertheless, CATS accommodated Brown by permitting him to remain in the position without obtaining a CDL.

A few years later, another new mayor was elected, and Brown was promoted to a street supervisor position. Again, having a CDL was one of the qualifications in the street supervisor's job description. Although Brown's supervisors didn't explicitly grant him an accommodation like they previously had, they were well aware of his diabetes and his inability to maintain a CDL at the time he was promoted.

In 2012, the former mayor regained his seat, and Brown's employment was terminated. The reason listed on his termination notice was his inability to obtain a CDL, as required in his job description. Brown subsequently started his own trailer-hauling business. About a year later, his business failed, and he began collecting Social Security disability benefits.

Brown filed suit against the city, alleging, among other claims, that it failed to accommodate his disability (diabetes) in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). His case proceeded to trial, and the jury found in his favor on the ADA claim. He was awarded $25,000 in compensatory damages and $65,274.64 in lost wages, benefits, and interest. The city appealed the jury's verdict.

7th Circuit's ruling

The city's argument on appeal was primarily focused on whether having a CDL was an "essential function" of the street supervisor position. The first argument the city made was that the district court—not the jury—should have decided the question.

The 7th Circuit quickly rejected that argument, noting, "The essential-function inquiry is a factual question, not a question of law." Moreover, the court noted that there was ample evidence supporting the jury's conclusion that possessing a CDL wasn't an essential function of the street supervisor position.

While the court acknowledged that having a CDL was listed as a job requirement, it noted the job description is just one of many factors to consider in determining whether a job function is essential.

Indeed, at trial, Brown's supervisor testified that driving a bus wasn't a key responsibility for street supervisors because there were usually other individuals—with CDLs—available to drive in emergencies, and they could generally be found within 10 minutes. Moreover, Brown testified that in his 4 years as a street supervisor, he never needed to drive a bus.

The city next argued that the court erred when it instructed the jurors that in determining whether having a CDL was an essential job function, they could consider the amount of time street supervisors spent driving buses.

Again, the court quickly dismissed that argument, noting that federal regulations expressly provide that evidence of the amount of time spent performing a function should be considered in determining whether the function is essential. Brown v. Smith, No. 15-1114 (7th Cir., 2016).

Bottom line

While it's a best practice to maintain written job descriptions that list essential job functions, it's important to remember that job descriptions are just one of many things to consider when determining whether a function is truly essential.

Before making any employment decisions based on an employee's perceived inability to perform an essential function, closely analyze the job and its requirements to determine what the true essential functions are. As always, consult a labor and employment attorney if you have questions or concerns about navigating your employment-related decisions.

Sarah Bowers, a contributor to Indiana Employment Law Letter, can be reached at sarah.bowers@faegrebd.com.