Must Hospital Return Physician’s Assistant to Original Schedule Post Medical Leave?

What Do You Think?

Employers must engage in an interactive process to determine reasonable accommodations when an employee needs them due to a disability. A recent case involving a physician’s assistant with a back injury addresses what may and may not be considered "reasonable."

Prior to her return from medical leave, the PA requested accommodations such as walking with a cane and not lifting more than 20 pounds. She also wanted a schedule that allowed her to attend acupuncture and mental health and aquatic therapy related to her injury.

The hospital granted the above accommodations, but changed her schedule. She claimed the new schedule conflicted with her therapy appointments, but it actually conflicted with her second job--working at NYU in Brooklyn.

The PA sued the hospital, claiming it discriminated against her under the ADA by failing to restore her original schedule.

Under the ADA, an employer must provide a reasonable accommodation sufficient to meet the employee’s job-related needs.

Was the PA entitled to go back to her original schedule?

A. Yes. She needed her original schedule so she could attend therapy related to her disability.

B. No. She preferred the original schedule, but didn’t need it because of her disability.

If you selected B, you agreed with the court in Jones-Cruz v. Brookdale Hosp. Med. Ctr., No. No. 19-CV-06910 (MMG) (S.D.N.Y. 06/06/24), which held that the PA's request was not reasonable.

An employer is required to provide a reasonable accommodation necessitated by the employee’s disability. But there is no requirement to provide a change in schedule or other type of support merely because the employee prefers it.

Here, the employee’s request to have her preferred schedule was not reasonable and was not necessary. It was merely a preference. The evidence indicated that she did not need her original schedule to attend therapy. The real issue, the court indicated, was that the new schedule conflicted with her second job. “[T]he request for specific days off was nothing more than a preference, and failure to accommodate Plaintiff's preference does not amount to unlawful discrimination,” the court said. It agreed to throw out the case.

Share This Article: