The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (“the Court”) recently affirmed the dismissal of a nursing student intern’s lawsuit alleging disability discrimination and failure to accommodate claims. The Court opined that the plaintiff in this action failed to establish an intentional discrimination claim against Hurley Medical Center (“Hurley”) and that Hurley did not fail to provide her with a reasonable accommodation.
Case Background
As we previously reported in this post, the plaintiff in this action was a nursing student intern who suffered from anxiety disorder and a history of panic attacks. Before beginning the clinical rotation at Hurley, the plaintiff requested that her service dog be permitted to accompany her on rotations, and Hurley initially granted her accommodation request.
On the first day that the plaintiff brought her service dog to the hospital, one employee and one patient reported experiencing allergic reactions. Because bringing the service dog caused these allergic reactions to individuals inside the hospital, Hurley informed the plaintiff that having the service dog accompany her on clinical rounds was no longer reasonable. As an alternative, Hurley offered the option to put the plaintiff’s service dog in a bodysuit designed to limit shedding or crate the service dog on a different floor and allow the plaintiff to take breaks to spend time with the service dog, but the plaintiff declined.
ADA’s Direct Threat Assessment and Engaging in the Interactive Process
The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that Hurley reasonably determined that bringing the service dog posed a direct threat to the health and safety of patients. According to the Court, Hurley did not fail to provide the plaintiff with a reasonable accommodation because Hurley did not know which individuals were allergic to dogs, and moving patients and staff from floors would have significant concerns from both patient care and collective bargaining perspectives. The Court held that Hurley did not fail to engage in the Americans with Disabilities Act’s (“ADA’s”) interactive process as it repeatedly engaged and communicated with the plaintiff in addition to working with medical experts to determine a reasonable accommodation for the plaintiff.
Practical Takeaways
It is critical that employers conduct an individualized assessment as to whether an accommodation request poses a direct threat to the health and safety of others before they deny such requested accommodation. It is also imperative for employers to recognize that their initial decision on an accommodation request may differ from their final decision. The ADA’s interactive process may therefore be ongoing.
If you have any questions, please contact:
- Larry Jensen at ljensen@hallrender.com or (248) 457-7850;
- Kathryn Jones at kejones@hallrender.com or (248) 457-7846; or
- Your primary Hall Render contact.
Hall Render blog posts and articles are intended for informational purposes only. For ethical reasons, Hall Render attorneys cannot—outside of an attorney-client relationship—answer specific questions that would be legal advice.
