Appeals court gives tough break to employers on ‘essential duties’

Within the last year, interesting trends have emerged from federal courts on a variety of important ADA issues. Striking somewhat of a balance, courts have tended to be more favorable to employers in deciding which functions of a job are truly “essential.” Conversely, many courts have sided with the employee regarding the sufficiency of the job description on the same question. Recently, the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals released an opinion that continues the latter trend and offers important insights for employers.

Spit take

Timethia Brown was a customer service representative for Advanced Concept Innovations (ACI). When she became pregnant, she endured hyperemesis gravidarum, a condition characterized by severe nausea and vomiting. She exhausted her Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave but discovered she could prevent vomiting by spitting regularly and not swallowing saliva.

As an accommodation, Brown requested that she be able to carry a “spit cup” with her onto the production floor. ACI refused, citing cleanliness standards. Eventually, she was fired and filed a lawsuit.

Court's take

At trial, ACI argued Brown’s job required her to work in the production area, where it couldn’t accommodate spitting. But she disagreed.