Employers do not need to provide every accommodation requested by an employee to be in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). The Northern District of Illinois recently reaffirmed this principle in the case of Alanis v. Metra, 12-cv-7508. In this case, Alanis, a 10 year veteran at Metra, began suffering from a variety of fragrance-sensitivity symptoms such as difficulty breathing and speaking. She was seen by a medical provider who concluded that she could return to work, but gave her 30 days to obtain a physiological clearance exam. She again experienced symptoms the next week and again saw Metra’s medical provider who determined that her medical issues prevented her from performing her job and she was “medically disqualified” from working.
Alanis took a medical leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act and applied for short term disability. Shortly afterwards, her treating physician released her to return to work. However, Alanis had neither completed the physiological exam nor received clearance from Metra, and therefore was not allowed to return to work. Alanis eventually submitted to a physiological exam and was cleared to work three months later by Metra. As a condition of her return, she requested the following accommodations: flexible work hours, a modified dress code, a limitation on extended speaking, periodic rest breaks, use of a headset to minimize distractions, a fragrance-free workplace, and a private office. Metra provided all of the requested accommodations except for the private office and a fragrance-free workplace. Metra could not provide her with a private office because the only employees with private offices were those who handled confidential employee information. Additionally, Metra was unable to provide a completely fragrance-free environment, but it did make efforts by implementing new policies to limit the amount of fragrances. These efforts included changing cleaning products, moving Alanis’s cubicle further away from the kitchen, and requesting that employees not wear perfume or cologne. Metra also asked Alanis to notify and report to Metra when there was a fragrance issue. When Alanis did report an issue, Metra took steps to intervene.
Even after all of this, Alanis was not satisfied and filed suit against Metra, alleging discrimination, based on her race, and retaliation because of her disability. The court found no evidence of either discrimination or retaliation because no adverse employment action was taken against Alanis. In fact, Metra had promoted Alanis and given her a raise in the middle of her lawsuit. Further, the court found that Metra had gone above and beyond normal requirements to grant Alanis’s requests for accommodation. The court’s decision generally upheld the notion that, while reasonable accommodations generally make every work environment a better place, not every accommodation must be made. When navigating the complexities of the employment law and the ADA, the attorneys at Rock Fusco & Connelly can help protect you from frivolous claims.