A recent decision of the Sixth Circuit shows the importance of maintaining accurate, updated job descriptions for employees.In Henschel v. Clare County Road Commission, 6th Cir. No. 13-1528 (Dec. 13, 2013), the plaintiff was working as an excavator operator for a county road commission when he lost his leg in a motorcycle accident. When the plaintiff was not allowed to return to work, he filed suit alleging that the county discriminated against him because of his disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the county, finding that hauling the excavator to the work site was an essential function of the position, and that the plaintiff was unable to do so because he could not drive a manual transmission semi-truck. The district court also held that reassigning the plaintiff to a different position was not a reasonable accommodation.
On appeal, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling that hauling the excavator was an essential function the plaintiff’s position. The key to the court’s ruling was that the county’s job description for the excavator operator position did not include hauling the excavator. Rather, this duty was listed on the job description for a different position (truck driver). The court also relied on testimony suggesting that hauling the excavator did not take much of the plaintiff’s time and other employees could have hauled the excavator without issue. However, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling that reassigning the plaintiff to a different position was not a reasonable accommodation. The court noted that transferring the employee would have required the employee to violate the terms of his union’s collective bargaining agreement with the county or required the county to recreate a new position for the plaintiff. These scenarios were not “reasonable accommodations” under the ADA as a matter of law.