Is an employee on an extended leave of absence due to a long-term medical condition protected from employment termination by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)? The answer depends on multiple factors, including whether the employee is a “qualified individual with a disability.” The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently addressed this issue in the case of Oba Wilson v. Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (3rd. Cir., Oct. 15, 2024). The Court held that the employee’s termination did not violate the ADA because he was unable to perform the essential functions of his job, and no reasonable accommodation was available to overcome this incapacity to work.
While employed by Children’s Hospital as a general service worker, Wilson took several months of leave in 2019 to care for his ill fiancée. However, shortly after returning to work in June 2019, Wilson developed an anxiety condition which caused him to request additional leave. The Hospital granted that request, and Wilson remained on leave due to his medical condition for approximately nine months without providing an estimate as to when he could return to work. Finally, the Hospital terminated Wilson’s employment in June 2020, after determining that Wilson’s ongoing absence had placed a hardship on its operations.
Wilson filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and thereafter sued the Hospital for disability discrimination under the ADA. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the Hospital’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Wilson’s case. Wilson then appealed to the Third Circuit.
On appeal, there did not appear to be any issue before the Court as to whether Wilson’s medical condition constituted a “disability” under the ADA (i.e., a physical or mental impairment which substantially limited a major life activity). Instead, the case turned on whether Wilson was qualified to perform the essential functions of his job with or without reasonable accommodation. According to the Court, in order to prove a claim of disability discrimination under the ADA, the employee must be so qualified as of the time of the challenged adverse employment action.
Here, however, the evidence was undisputed that Wilson was incapable of performing his essential job functions at the time he was terminated by the Hospital. Indeed, Wilson admitted that he was unable to perform any work at that time due to his medical condition. Furthermore, because Wilson had been on an extended and open-ended leave without any estimated return to work date, the Court found that the Hospital was not required under the ADA to continue such leave as an accommodation. In that regard, the Court cited established precedent stating that “indefinite leave” does not constitute a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. Because of his incapacity to work, the Court concluded that Wilson was not a “qualified individual” with a disability. Therefore, Wilson could not establish a claim for disability discrimination regarding his termination. The Court thus affirmed summary judgment for the Hospital.
Employers are often faced with such situations involving employees on extended leave for medical reasons. The EEOC takes the general position that leaves of absence are a potential form of reasonable accommodation under the ADA “when necessitated by an employee’s disability.” (See EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation). But as the Court’s analysis in the Wilson case demonstrates, continued leave may not be compelled by the ADA in every circumstance. As part of the interactive process, employers should seek information from employees regarding their ability to perform essential job functions (with or without reasonable accommodation) and when they expect to return to work. Such information may indicate whether the employee is a “qualified individual with a disability” as of the time when all leave benefits available under the employer’s policies, as well as any applicable laws such as the Family and Medical Leave Act, have been exhausted. However, given the potential risk of liability in these cases, Employers may wish to consult experienced employment counsel before taking adverse employment action.
