The 8th Circuit just reminded everyone that's not how the ADA works.
In Kendall v. Zoltek Corp., an employee at a carbon-fiber manufacturing facility injured her back and developed sciatica. Initially, her doctor cleared her to return to work without restrictions. Later, however, she requested an accommodation allowing her to sit periodically during her shifts. The company granted that request for several months while it evaluated her condition.
Eventually, though, the medical restrictions became permanent—and much more limiting. By the time her employment ended, she couldn't stand for more than 20 to 30 minutes, couldn't bend, stoop, kneel, crawl under machinery, or lift more than 10 pounds. Her employer's production operator position required employees to stand throughout 12-hour shifts while performing physically demanding work. After she exhausted her leave, the company terminated her employment.
She sued under the ADA, arguing that because Zoltek had successfully allowed her to sit for several months, standing couldn't really be an essential function of the job.
The 8th Circuit wasn't persuaded.
Instead, it reaffirmed several important ADA principles that employers should keep in mind.
First, written job descriptions matter.
The court gave significant weight to Zoltek's written job description, which required employees to stand for up to 12 hours while repeatedly lifting, bending, reaching, pulling, and walking. It also deferred to the employer's judgment that these physical demands were essential to the position.
That's another reminder that job descriptions shouldn't collect dust in an HR file cabinet. They should accurately describe what employees actually do. If they don't, they'll be far less persuasive when litigation arrives.
Second, temporary accommodations don't become permanent obligations.
This is the biggest takeaway from the decision.
The court reiterated its longstanding rule that employers should not be punished for trying to help employees. Providing a temporary accommodation while evaluating an employee's medical condition doesn't mean the employer has conceded that the accommodation is reasonable forever.
As the court explained, employers don't make a job function "non-essential" simply because they voluntarily accommodate an employee for a limited period of time.
That's an important rule. Otherwise, employers would have every incentive to refuse temporary flexibility out of fear that generosity would later be used against them in court.
Third, the ADA doesn't require eliminating essential job functions.
Reasonable accommodation means helping a qualified employee perform the essential functions of the job—not removing those functions altogether.
Because standing, bending, lifting, and similar physical activities were essential functions of this production job, permanently excusing the employee from performing them wasn't a reasonable accommodation. By the time Zoltek made its termination decision, the employee's restrictions prevented her from performing multiple essential job duties, even with accommodation.
That's why the court affirmed summary judgment for the employer.
The takeaways
Employers shouldn't hesitate to provide temporary accommodations while they gather medical information or determine whether an employee's condition will improve.
The ADA encourages flexibility. It doesn't punish it.
Just remember to do three things:
- Maintain accurate, up-to-date job descriptions that identify the position's essential functions.
- Clearly document when an accommodation is intended to be temporary while additional medical information is obtained.
- Continue the interactive process as circumstances change rather than assuming yesterday's accommodation automatically remains reasonable forever.
A temporary accommodation is exactly that—temporary. As Kendall v. Zoltek demonstrates, extending grace to an employee today doesn't rewrite the essential functions of the job tomorrow.