By Reba Weiss and Harrison Owens
In Garcia v. Cintas Corp. No. 3, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a Washington District Court’s dismissal of an employee’s claim that her employer failed to accommodate her disability in violation of the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD). In her complaint, the employee claimed that her employer failed to accommodate her wrist injury after it worsened months after the injury first occurred. The District Court found that the employee did not provide enough evidence that she notified her employer that her current work would aggravate her injury or that she was substantially limited, so it dismissed her case. The Court of Appeals agreed with the dismissal of her case, and affirmed the District Court’s decision.
Elva Garcia was employed by Cintas Corp. No. 3, and injured her wrist in August 2011. However, in early November she told Cintas that she was pain-free and was not limited by her condition. Also, she did not provide medical documentation that would show that her injury would become worse if she continued doing her current job.
In mid-November 2011, Garcia told Cintas that she could only continue in her current job for two weeks. Cintas did not change her position, and Garcia continued to work in the position until January 2012. During this time, she did not miss any work and her ability to perform her job duties was not impaired. In January, her wrist injury became worse and she could no longer work in her regular position. Cintas’ subsequent efforts to accommodate her injury were unsuccessful.
Garcia brought a lawsuit against Cintas for failure to accommodate in violation of the WLAD. The District Court dismissed her claim, finding that she did not give Cintas sufficient notice of her disability, and she wrongfully rejected Cintas’ proposed accommodations. She appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Under the WLAD, a plaintiff must show that her disability substantially limited her ability to perform her work, or she must have medical documentation that working without an accommodation would aggravate the impairment until it became substantially limiting. The Ninth Circuit found that Garcia did not do this. When she injured her wrist she was able to perform her job normally, and did not complain of pain or show that continuing in her job would worsen her injury. The Court also found that Garcia wrongfully rejected Cintas’ proposed accommodations after it became aware of her limitation. Garcia apparently did not dispute that she could have worked at her current job with one hand, which would have not aggravated her wrist. In addition, when Cintas proposed accommodations that would allow Garcia to continue in her current position, Garcia rejected all of them and became hostile. The Ninth Circuit found that Garcia’s actions were wrongful, and that Cintas actually did attempt to provide a reasonable accommodation.
In summary, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Garcia’s claim for failure to accommodate in violation of the WLAD. It found that Garcia did not actually notify Cintas of her disability until January 2012, although her injury occurred in August 2011. Further, it found that Garcia wrongfully rejected Cintas’ proposed accommodations. Therefore, Garcia did not have a valid claim for failure to accommodate.
Workplace accommodations require an “interactive” process between the employee and the employer. An employee who is uncooperative with the employer’s attempts at accommodation will almost always lose her case. The employer does not have to provide the accommodation that the employee wants – only an accommodation that assists the disabled employee to do her job.
