Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n v. St. Joseph’s Hosp., Inc — Dec. 2016 (Summary)

ADA

Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n v. St. Joseph’s Hosp., Inc.
No. 15-14551 (11th Cir. Dec. 7, 2016)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) did not require job reassignment without competition as a reasonable accommodation.

A nurse was employed in the psychiatric ward of a hospital.  During her employment she began to experience back pain, developed arthritis, and underwent hip replacement surgery.  In order to alleviate the pain of her physical ailments, she began to use a cane.  Without her cane, she could only walk short distances and would need to stop to realign her body.  The director of Behavioral Health Operations at the psychiatric ward was concerned that the cane could be used as a weapon by one of the patients.  In response to the director’s concerns, the nurse produced a doctor’s note recommending use of the cane in the psychiatric ward.  Two years later, the hospital advised the nurse that she could no longer use the cane in the psychiatric ward because it posed a safety risk.  The hospital allowed the nurse 30 days to identify and apply for other positions at the hospital and compete with other internal applicants, even though she did not meet the criteria required to apply for a position internally.  The hospital’s human resources director emphasized that it was not their job to get the nurse a new job.  The nurse did not apply for any new positions until three weeks into her 30-day allotment and of the 700 jobs that were available, the nurse only applied to seven, and of those seven jobs, she was only qualified for three.  The hospital did not interview the nurse for any of the three jobs for which she was qualified.  When the nurse did not obtain another hospital position, the hospital terminated her employment and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) brought a suit against the hospital on her behalf.

Both parties filed motions for summary judgment, with the district court ruling that the nurse established a disability under the ADA, that the hospital was reasonable in not allowing her to use the cane, and that the hospital did not have an obligation to reassign the nurse to a vacant position without competition.  The case went to trial with the jury bringing back a verdict in favor of the hospital.

On appeal, the EEOC argued that the ADA mandates noncompetitive reassignment and that had the jury been instructed as such, there would not have been a finding of good faith on behalf of the hospital.  The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court’s ruling, finding that the ADA only provides that an employer must reasonably accommodate a disabled employee; it does not say how the employer must do it.  The ADA provides that it may be reasonable to reassign a disabled employee to a vacant position, but it does not mandate reassignment.

The appeals court found that the employer had a best-qualified applicant policy, and that requiring reassignment in violation of an employer’s best-qualified hiring or transfer policy is not reasonable and passing over the best-qualified job applicants in favor of less-qualified ones is not a reasonable way to promote efficiency or good performance.  It also found that in the case of hospitals, the well-being and even the lives of patients can depend on having the best-qualified personnel.  Thus, undermining a hospital’s best-qualified hiring or transfer policy would impose substantial costs on the hospital and potentially on patients.  The ADA only requires an employer to allow a disabled person to compete equally with the rest of the world for a vacant position, not to undermine the business structure of a hospital or the need for quality patient care.