If your employee isn't a professional driver but spends a lot of time on the road, how "essential" a job function is driving for ADA purposes? Is driving "essential" at all?
In what I consider to be a very significant result under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently ruled that driving might not be an ADA "essential function" in jobs that require a lot of driving but primarily exist for other reasons.
"Seriously? I spend 40 hours a week in my car, and you say driving may not be 'essential' to my job?"
This is a big deal. Under the ADA, if driving is an essential function, then the employer can insist that the employee do it, with or without a reasonable accommodation. If driving is not an essential function, then the employer cannot.
(Transportation employers should be able to continue to safely assume that "driving" is an essential function of a driver's job.)
The case is Stephenson v. Pfizer, Inc., which involved a pharmaceutical representative. The pharma rep exists primarily to make presentations to physicians and encourage them to prescribe drugs made by the rep's company. However, to make those presentations, the rep has to get to the doctors' places of business; hence, the need to drive.
Employers with "road warrior" employees should review and, if necessary, update existing job descriptions to make sure that they include driving and accurately reflect employees' other job duties. They should also be very cautious about denying a "driving" accommodation.
Plaintiff Whitney Stephenson was a senior, apparently stellar Pfizer rep serving the area of Winston-Salem, North Carolina . She developed an eye condition that significantly impaired her vision and made her unable to drive, but she could apparently continue to ably perform the other functions of her job. She requested the reasonable accommodation of a driver, and the company reportedly refused it, worried about the precedent that it would be setting. "Not everyone is a Whitney Stephenson," her boss allegedly told her. The company did offer her some non-driving positions, which she declined.
Ms. Stephenson sued, and in 2014, a U.S. District Court Judge awarded summary judgment to Pfizer. But on appeal, the Fourth Circuit panel reversed, and said that a jury would have to decide whether driving was an essential function of Ms. Stephenson's job. Although Ms. Stephenson had a written job description, it did not include "driving" as an essential function. Instead, the description focused on education, sales ability, pharmaceutical knowledge, and other traits unrelated to the ability to drive.
Another issue - to be resolved at trial, presumably - is whether Pfizer has to hire a driver for Ms. Stephenson, or whether hiring a driver is an "unreasonable" accommodation that Pfizer doesn't have to make.
Click here to view image.
"Yes, I have to drive, but that's not why they hired me. They hired me because I can sell stuff."
Some heavy hitters filed briefs in support of the parties, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a number of disability-rights groups, and the National Employment Lawyers Association, on behalf of Ms. Stephenson; and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Equal Employment Advisory Council, and the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center, on behalf of Pfizer.
The Stephenson decision could have significant implications for employers of sales representatives, account executives, merchandisers, home health care providers, cable TV technicians, and others whose raison d'être may not be driving but who are required to do significant driving as part of their jobs.
If sounds as if the panel might have upheld the summary judgment decision in their favor if Pfizer had included "driving" as an essential function - or maybe as any function - in its job description. Employers with should review and, if necessary, update existing job descriptions to make sure that they include driving and accurately reflect employees' other job duties.
Finally, employers should be very cautious before denying requests for a "driving" accommodation. In 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed summary judgment for a home health care provider that had refused to provide a driver for a nurse.
If driving is not an essential function, the employer would be responsible for including presumably another person to do the driving or some other reasonable accommodation.
Safety Resource Associates [SRA] provides employers with ROI-Based Safety Programs to enhance employee safety & health and to increase long-term company profitability.