By Cynthia McNabb and Kim Lowe
In Williams v. Fairfax Cnty., a District Court judge ruled that a police and fire dispatcher’s ADA suit could go forward on the theory that Fairfax County, Virginia engaged in unreasonable delay in granting the dispatcher’s request for accommodation.
Jonate Williams was a Public Safety Communicator (Dispatcher) for Fairfax County. Williams had a “chronic, unexcused tardiness problem” for which she was first reprimanded in 2016. Williams suffered an injury in the workplace parking lot in 2019 which caused her to be on paid injury leave for almost 9 months. On Williams’s return, the injury caused restrictions on her ability to work from a normal workstation and restricted her from performing CPR, a required job duty. Fairfax County eventually provided an ergonomic keyboard and mouse and assigned Williams her own designated workstation. The County also put her on shorter shifts and gave Williams time to recertify in CPR. However, Williams continued to rack up unexcused tardies. She was terminated by Fairfax County in August 2021 after another unscheduled late arrival.
Williams argued that she was subject to discrimination on the basis of her disability and the Fairfax County failed to properly accommodate her disability by causing unreasonable delays in getting her needed equipment. Specifically, it delayed several months in providing Williams her own designated, ergonomic workspace. After she had a workspace that met her needs, Williams was able to take calls as expected.
Fairfax County countered her claims, arguing that Williams was terminated, instead, because of her well-documented and persistent attendance problem. It further argued that Williams never sufficiently requested reasonable accommodation and, even if she had, there was no unreasonable delay in providing what Williams needed to perform her job duties.
Judge Alston agreed with Fairfax County that there was no evidence in the record that it fired Williams because of her disability instead of her continuing failure to arrive at work on time
“The record reveals that at the time of her suspension, clearly, Plaintiff was not meeting her employer’s legitimate expectations for reporting to work on time.”
However, Alston also said that Williams’s claim that Fairfax County unreasonably delayed her necessary accommodations could go forward to trial. The Judge found that
“the record reflects that when Defendant provided Plaintiff with these accommodations, Plaintiff was able to perform essential functions of her job-including calltaking.”
Since Williams would have been able to perform the job with reasonable accommodations, it is a matter for a jury or trial judge whether Fairfax County breached its obligations to accommodate Williams’ disability.
This case illustrates the importance of (1) making requests for accommodation clearly and directly; and (2) continuously documenting follow-ups to accommodation requests. This is especially true for physical or ergonomic items that would, effectively, resolve the need for leave. Often, employers will put requests for ergonomic items or equipment to the bottom of their list of priority items, especially if they do not maintain a separate budget for accommodations. Should you encounter delay or refusals to accommodate, reach out to our office immediately so that we can assist your member in getting the accommodation(s) they need to effectively do their jobs.
**Visit our Premium Website for more information on Disability Discrimination**
