Cuiellette v. City of Los Angeles (April 22, 2011) cautions employers that when an employee has been rated as 100% disabled for workers' compensation purposes, the employer is not relieved of its duties under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"). Practically speaking, a workers' compensation rating, even as high as 100% disabled, does not mean that the employee cannot be a qualified individual entitled to an individualized assessment of his or her disability through an interactive process and a reasonable accommodation.
Cuiellette also serves as a reminder that when an
employer has a policy of offering employees permanent
"light-duty" positions as an accommodation, the relevant
inquiry to determine whether the employee is a qualified individual
is whether they are able to perform the essential functions of the
position to which they are, or would be reassigned, not whether
they are able to perform the essential duties of the original
position.
Cuiellette was a Los Angeles peace officer who suffered an injury
and was placed on disability leave. He was designated 100% disabled
as part of his workers' compensation proceedings. After being
out for an extended leave, Cuiellette asked to return to work and
was released to return to work by his treating physician with the
general restriction: "permanent light-duty –
administrative work only." Upon his return to work, the Los
Angeles Police Department ("LAPD") assigned Cuiellette to
one of its 250 permanent light-duty desk positions reserved for
peace officers who cannot perform more rigorous duties. After
Cuiellette performed the light-duty position for five days without
incident, his supervisor informed him that the LAPD would not allow
him to continue to work because he had been found 100% disabled for
workers' compensation purposes.
Cuiellette challenged his dismissal in a lawsuit brought against
the City of Los Angeles. He alleged, among other things, the City
violated FEHA by sending him home because of his disability rating,
failed to engage in the interactive process and failed to
accommodate him. Cuiellette received a jury verdict of $1,571,500.
After three appeals on a number of aspects of the case, the Second
Appellate District Court held that the workers' compensation
100% disability rating did not relieve the City of its obligations
under FEHA. Specifically, the Court affirmed the jury's finding
that the City had violated FEHA by summarily sending Cuiellette
home because of his disability rating and without engaging
in the interactive process.
The City argued that it had a legitimate non-discriminatory reason
for sending Cuiellette home – it could not place someone
in the workplace who, even for the purposes of workers'
compensation, was 100% disabled. The City also argued that no one
with a 100% disability rating had ever tried to return to work,
Cuiellette could not perform the essential duties of the peace
officer position and there was no way to reasonably accommodate
him.
The Court disagreed, finding that even in light of the 100%
disability rating, the City had an independent duty to comply with
FEHA. The Court instructed that regardless of the workers'
compensation rating, the City was required to evaluate
Cuiellette's situation in accordance with FEHA. While the same
health condition may inform the workers' compensation rating
and an employee's ability to perform essential job functions,
the analyses are different. The Court counseled that after
receiving the 100% disability rating, if the City had concerns
about Cuiellette's ability to perform the essential functions
of the light-duty position, it had an affirmative duty to engage in
the interactive process and make an effort to accommodate
him.
The Court also rejected the City's argument that Cuiellette was
not a qualified individual because he could not perform the
essential function of the peace officer position. It held that
because the City had a policy of reassigning disabled officers that
could not perform the peace office job duties to permanent
light-duty desk jobs, Cuiellette must be evaluated under the
essential functions of the light-duty position. Under FEHA, the
question is whether the employee's medical restrictions prevent
him from performing the essential functions of the position that
"he held or that he desired to fill."
Cuiellette instructs employers that they are obligated to
evaluate an employee's ability to perform the essential
functions of their position independently from the rating issued in
connection with a workers' compensation claim or proceeding. In
addition, employers who have a policy or practice of reassigning
employees to new positions as an accommodation need to evaluate the
employee in light to the essential functions of the position to
which they would be reassigned, not their original
position.
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.