By David E. Worley
In Keseker v. Marin Community College District (27 AD Cases 421 (N.D. Cal. 2012)), the California Federal District Court refused to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a former police officer who claimed he was unfairly forced to retire because of an anxiety disorder that made him not fit for duty. He claimed the employer violated the ADA in failing to provide him with reasonable accommodations, failing to engage in the interactive process, wrongful termination, and discriminating against him based on his disability.
The officer was diagnosed with an anxiety disorder and declared unfit for duty. The examining psychiatrist stated that his condition would persist “for the foreseeable future,” but was not necessarily permanent. The employer possessed all relevant data on the psychological examination, but failed to furnish this data to the officer. The officer was urged to retire, and his request for administrative leave was denied.
The crux of the issue was whether administrative leave was a reasonable accommodation given that there was no indication whether the ailment was permanent. While the employer argued the uncertainty as to whether the plaintiff would recover, warranted the termination, the court thought otherwise:
Defendant has not cited any case, and the court is aware of none, in which an employer was excused from providing a finite leave of absence at the outset because the employee’s disability, while not permanent, was unlikely to allow the employee to return to work in the near term.
Because the court found the denial of a reasonable leave of absence was improper, the remainder of the plaintiff’s claims followed a relatively straightforward analysis. For example, the claim of failing to engage in the interactive process turned on both the denial of the request for leave, and the fact that the employer possessed all relevant information regarding the disability. Therefore, the employer could not argue that the employee’s condition was unknown.
