The case involves the company's former division controller, who suffered a severe rotator cuff injury and fractured wrist. His doctor cleared him to return to work with restrictions, limiting the use of his injured left arm. Confident that he could still handle all the essential functions of his job with his right arm, he asked to come back to work, despite Navitas's policy. The company, however denied his request and fired him.
"Policies that require an employee to be restriction-free before returning to work run afoul of the ADA," said Miles Uhlar, the local EEOC trial attorney handling the case. "This employee could have performed the essential functions of his position. By strictly applying its '100% release' policy, Navitas violated the ADA."
A 100% healed policy violates the ADA because it does not provide any opportunity for reasonable accommodations for the employee's disability and completely ignores an employer's obligation to engage in the interactive process. As the EEOC explains in its ADA guidance:
"An employer will violate the ADA if it requires an employee with a disability to have no medical restrictions — that is, be '100%' healed or recovered — if the employee can perform her job with or without reasonable accommodation.… [P]ermitting an employer to require that an employee be 100% healed would negate the ADA's requirement that an employer provide reasonable accommodation if it enables an employee to perform his job."
The Navitas lawsuit is a great reminder of this key ADA rule. Before you refuse to permit an employee to return to work following an illness or injury, you must first exhaust your ADA obligation to consider and pursue reasonable accommodations that will permit the employee to perform the essential functions of his or her job. Otherwise, you've violated the ADA.
"Policies that require an employee to be restriction-free before returning to work run afoul of the ADA," said Miles Uhlar, the local EEOC trial attorney handling the case. "This employee could have performed the essential functions of his position. By strictly applying its '100% release' policy, Navitas violated the ADA."
A 100% healed policy violates the ADA because it does not provide any opportunity for reasonable accommodations for the employee's disability and completely ignores an employer's obligation to engage in the interactive process. As the EEOC explains in its ADA guidance:
"An employer will violate the ADA if it requires an employee with a disability to have no medical restrictions — that is, be '100%' healed or recovered — if the employee can perform her job with or without reasonable accommodation.… [P]ermitting an employer to require that an employee be 100% healed would negate the ADA's requirement that an employer provide reasonable accommodation if it enables an employee to perform his job."
The Navitas lawsuit is a great reminder of this key ADA rule. Before you refuse to permit an employee to return to work following an illness or injury, you must first exhaust your ADA obligation to consider and pursue reasonable accommodations that will permit the employee to perform the essential functions of his or her job. Otherwise, you've violated the ADA.