Thursday, June 9, 2011

EEOC and employers differ on the use of neutral maximum leave of absence policies


As I reported earlier this week, yesterday the EEOC held a public meeting on the use of leave as a reasonable accommodation. Opinions differed sharply on whether an employer can satisfy its obligations under the ADA by implementing a neutral leave of absence policy that caps a maximum allowable leave (for example, a policy that says, “Employees who do not return to work following a maximum of six months leave will be presumed to have resigned,” or “Employees will be entitled to a maximum of six months of unpaid medical leave in appropriate circumstances, and thereafter the company cannot hold the employee’s position open or guarantee a position to which the employee can return”).

John Hendrickson, an EEOC Regional Attorney who litigated this issue in the high-profile EEOC v. Sears Roebuck & Co. case (which resulted in a $6.2 million settlement), offered the following five observations on the EEOC’s view of these policies:

  1. An inflexible period of disability leave, even if substantial, is not sufficient to satisfy an employer’s duty of reasonable accommodation.
  2. The appropriate length of leave under the ADA requires an individualized analysis—even when the employer has a generous fixed leave policy.
  3. Separating leave administration—like the administration of worker’s compensation benefits or disability benefits—from ADA administration is risky for employers.
  4. Clear lines of communication regarding reasonable accommodations are critical not only with employees on leave but also with their health care providers, supervisors and managers.
  5. The Commission occupies a unique role in litigating these cases.

Management-side attorney Ellen McLaughlin argued the employer’s position:

One way employers attempt to control or manage the impact of employee leaves of absence on their business is to institute a neutral maximum leave of absence policy that sets a maximum duration for which an employee can be away from work…. The intent of these neutral leave programs is to provide employers with some level of control over their ability to manage their headcount and business operations. Employers know in advance how much time off an employee may take, and can track when an employee approaches that maximum in order to provide it an opportunity to begin planning coverage/replacement options sooner….

The case law is extremely undeveloped on the maximum leave issue, but what exists establishes that a universally applied maximum leave policy is not, per se, violative of the ADA…. In the midst of this confusion, the EEOC has begun aggressively litigating against employers with neutral maximum leave policies.

I echo Ellen’s sentiments that neutral leave policies provide employers the necessary flexibility to run their businesses in the face of leaves of uncertain duration. The EEOC needs to better consider the needs of the business community and provide greater guidance on this issue.

Employers, however, need to be practical and tread very lightly around these issues until the EEOC softens its position. The agency is aggressively pursuing businesses that enforce these neutral leave policies to the detriment of disabled employees. Unless you want to end up in the EEOC’s crosshairs, I recommend the following:

  1. Avoid leave policies that provide a per se maximum amount of leave, after which time an employee loses his or her job.
  2. Engage in the interactive process with an employee who needs an extended leave of absence, which includes the gathering of sufficient medical information and a definitive return to work date documented by a medical professional.
  3. Involve your employment counsel to aid in the process of deciding when an extended leave crosses the line from a reasonable accommodation to an undue hardship.
  4. Open your workplace to disabled employees to demonstrate to the EEOC, if necessary, that you take your ADA obligations seriously.
  5. You should document all costs associated with any extended unpaid leaves (modified schedules, added overtime, temporary hires, lost productivity, etc.) to help make your undue hardship argument, if needed.

Remembering “A, E, I, O, and You” will help you avoid the defense of a costly disability discrimination lawsuit.


Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Latest Posts