The following article was first published on Shipman & Goodwin attorney Dan Schwartz’ Connecticut Employment Law Blog. It is reposted here with permission.

A July 23 Second Circuit decision reinforces a principle employers sometimes forget in the accommodation process: doing something is not the same as doing enough.

In Raymond v. 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund, the court vacated summary judgment for the employer on an ADA failure-to-accommodate claim.

The employee had a vein condition that restricted his ability to drive for prolonged periods. The employer removed four facilities from his driving route.

The problem was that removing those four stops did not actually bring his remaining route within the medical restriction his doctor had identified according to the court.

The court held that an accommodation that does not enable the employee to perform the essential functions of the job is not a reasonable accommodation, regardless of the employer’s good intentions.

Sean Raymond worked for the 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund for nearly 30 years. His most recent role was outreach coordinator, which required him to drive to healthcare facilities on Long Island to give presentations about union benefits.

In 2017, after developing a serious vein condition, his doctor restricted him from driving more than 30 minutes at a time.

When Raymond’s condition first surfaced, the employer reassigned him to a zone with less driving, and things worked fine for two years.

Then the...

Read Full Story: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMijgFBVV95cUxNVUVoRWNUbzZTdWJHYkVMM3ll...