By: Cynthia McNabb and Clive Pontusson
In Reeder v. Carter, a recruit with the Indiana State Patrol brought suit in federal district court alleging that he had been discriminated against on account of his disability. Dillon Reeder had begun the ISP Recruit Academy and performed well, but was diagnosed with Diabetes and had to be hospitalized. During his treatment, the State Patrol made efforts to accommodate his condition, including special meals and reduced physical activity. However, the Patrol believed that Reeder could not complete the training program. Further, Reeder did not complete all of the coursework as part of the training program while he was in the hospital and when he was released from the hospital but not allowed to perform full-duty physical activities. As a result, Reeder was dismissed from the Academy. He was given the option of attending the Academy the following year, and also given the option of accepting a civilian job with the Patrol as a dispatcher. Reeder refused both offers. He filed a lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act, claiming that the State Patrol had not done enough to accommodate his condition. The court disagreed, and found that the Patrol had done everything required by the law to attempt to accommodate Reeder’s disability. The court therefore dismissed Reeder’s lawsuit.
Reeder and the Indiana State Patrol agreed on some basic facts. First, it was clear that Reeder did have diabetes, and that this would be a qualifying disability to trigger the protection of the Americans with Disabilities Act. They also agreed that not being able to graduate from the Academy was an “adverse employment action,” and, as a result, the provisions of the ADA applied to the decision to release Reeder from the Academy prior to graduation. Since they were in agreement on these points, Reeder’s argument centered on the other important concepts under the ADA: that he was otherwise qualified for the job, and that the State Patrol did not fulfill its duty to accommodate his disability. Reeder acknowledged that there were certain elements of the training he did not complete, but presented evidence that other recruits had also not completed these elements and were still allowed to graduate. He also presented evidence that several supervisors believed he was qualified to graduate, and generally qualified to be a Trooper. Reeder also argued that the State Patrol breached its duty to accommodate him by refusing to provide adequate diabetic meals and requiring him to participate in rigorous physical training that could be dangerous for him.
The Indiana State Patrol argued that they had made efforts to accommodate Reeder’s disability, including changes to his meal plan and they had provided him opportunities to observe, but not participate in, some of the training modules. But in a broader sense, the Patrol argued that there was no accommodation that could sucessfully allow Reeder to fulfill the functions of a recruit, because Reeder’s condition made him ultimately unqualified for the job of a trooper/recruit. This was because he could not participate in the strenuous physical activities that were fundamental to being a recruit.
After weighing the arguments, the Court agreed with the Patrol:
Mr. Reeder has been unable to demonstrate that any reasonable accommodation would have enabled him to perform the essential functions of a State Trooper trainee. […] The ISP was entitled to reject as unreasonable Mr. Reeder’s request for restrictions on strenuous physical activity through the end of the Academy while still allowing him to graduate, which would have been the equivalent of an exemption from his training requirements.
Furthermore, the Court found that the Indiana State Patrol had made reasonable efforts to accommodate Reeder, including offering different employment, or the chance to attend the Academy the following year when his condition might have improved:
The dispatch position was consistent with Mr. Reeder’s immediate restriction on strenuous physical activity and allowed him to remain within ISP’s employ. Similarly, his inclusion in the 75th Academy was also a reasonable accommodation because it allowed Mr. Reeder another opportunity to become an Indiana State Trooper, following his recovery from the physical activity restriction. These options remained on the table until Mr. Reeder rejected them.
As a result, the Court concluded that the Patrol had done everything it could to accommodate Reeder’s condition, but despite these efforts it was impossible for him to continue in the Academy. As a result, the State Patrol did not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Reeder’s lawsuit was dismissed.
**Visit our Premium Website for more information on the Disability Discrimination **
