If You Can’t Stand the Heat, Don’t File an ADA Claim

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
ADA Summer Heat essential functions
An inability to work in summer heat can make an employee unqualified to perform the essential functions of a job under the ADA.

If an employee cannot work outside in the summer heat, she is unqualified for a job that requires outside work and cannot file a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act.  This point was confirmed by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Perry v. City of Avon Park, No. 15-14525, 2016 WL 6819669 (11th Cir. Nov. 18, 2016).  As discussed below,  Perry provides at least two tips for employers to follow.  First, a written job description helps establish the essential functions of a job.  If the employee cannot perform the essential functions found in a job description, it is very difficult to win a claim under the ADA.  Second, employers are not required to change their job descriptions as an accommodation to employees with medical conditions.

In Perry, the employee was employed as a maintenance technician/assistant.  Her primary duties took place outside doing manual labor in Avon Park, Florida.  Ms. Perry was recovering from breast cancer and also suffering from mental health issues.  A physician placed work restrictions on Ms. Perry to avoid direct sunlight and to work no more than four hours outside in temperatures above 50 degrees and below 80 degrees.

The City actually tried to accommodate Mr. Perry and gave her a thermometer with instructions to return to City Hall if temperatures exceeded her threshold.  Because Avon Park is located in South Florida, the temperature restriction was exceeded almost immediately.  When the City asked Ms. Perry’s physician if there was any possibility of accommodating Ms. Perry’s restrictions, the physician stated that there was no way Ms. Perry could work unless the temperature restrictions were met.

The City terminated Ms. Perry’s employment, and she sued under the ADA.  The Eleventh Circuit found that Ms. Perry was not qualified for her position because she could not perform the essential functions listed in her written job description — the majority of which required outside work.  The Court also rejected two “reasonable accommodations” proposed by Ms. Perry.

First, the Court found that Avon Park was not required to change her job description to eliminate the essential function of outside work.  Second, the Court found that Avon Park was not required to abide by the physician’s restrictions, because those restrictions would prevent Ms. Perry from performing the essential function of outside work on a consistent basis.

Perry demonstrates that written job descriptions are extremely important to defending ADA claims.  If an employee cannot perform the essential functions of a job as listed in a job description, it will be very difficult for them to establish a claim for disability discrimination.