Disability discrimination; Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); Failure to accommodate; Whether plaintiff’s proposed accommodation was “objectively reasonable”; Failure to engage in the interactive-process

In this ADA action for failure to accommodate, the court held that plaintiff-Bowles’s requested accommodation was unreasonable as a matter of law because “versatility and mobility were essential functions of the position.” Further, her interactive-process claim depended upon a viable reasonable-accommodation claim. Thus, it affirmed summary judgment for defendant-employer (Chicken Salad Chick). Bowles worked for defendant as a cashier/service-team member. Because she suffered from arthritis in her knees, she requested that she be allowed to sit for five minutes after every ten minutes of standing. Defendant refused, and she sued under the ADA for failure to accommodate and for refusing to engage in the ADA’s interactive-accommodation process. On appeal, the court concluded that all Chicken Salad Chick team members “operate in a ‘fast-paced environment’ where effective multitasking and ‘well-paced mobility’ for the ‘duration of the workday’ are required skills.” Considering her claim for failure to accommodate, it explained that she had to show that “her proposed accommodation—being able to sit for five minutes after every ten minutes of standing—is objectively reasonable, accounting for the essential requirements of the cashier/service-team member role at Chicken Salad Chick.” The court concluded the “record on this front—including the ‘employer’s words, policies, and practices’—is overwhelming and undisputed.” It rejected her assertions that she was only hired to work at the register. As to her assertion that a reasonable jury could find “that an accommodation that permitted her to sit ‘intermittingly’ would have allowed her to still perform the job’s essential functions,” it determined that “a bare request simply to sit whenever needed is so nebulous that it amounts to no accommodation request at all.” The court held that meeting this accommodation request “would alter essential functions of the cashier/service-team member position . . . .” As to the failure to engage in the interactive-process claim, this is only an independent violation of the ADA if a “‘plaintiff establishes a prima facie showing that [s]he proposed a reasonable accommodation.’” As Bowles “presented a facially unreasonable request to Chicken Salad Chick,” this claim necessarily failed.