Corporate Counsel Daily, Town employee’s ‘accommodations requests’ letter was not an ADA accommodation request, (Jan 3, 2024)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

“Merely labeling a list of suggestions an ‘accommodation request’ is not enough to inform the employer that the employee is requesting workplace changes to address his disabilities, rather than other unrelated issues.”

Although a letter sent by an employee to his town employer was entitled “Accommodations Requests,” and referenced the ADA in its opening line, it was not a request for a reasonable accommodation under the ADA, the Fourth Circuit ruled, finding the letter’s substance—a list of grievances and suggestions that had no perceptible relation to his disabilities—undercut its label. Nor did the district court err in dismissing the employee’s ADA discrimination claim and denying leave to amend, said the court, noting that while he plausibly alleged he was disabled and was constructively discharged, he alleged no facts suggesting the town harbored a discriminatory motive. The court also affirmed dismissal of his ADA interference claim (Kelly v. Town of Abingdon, Virginia, January 2, 2024, Motz, D.).

Town manager. One year after he was hired as town attorney, the employee was appointed to town manager. In that position, he was responsible for managing the town’s day-to-day business affairs and supervising employees. He was also subject to an employment contract that guaranteed him nine months severance pay.

Caustic environment. Although he claimed he excelled in this role, over time, he alleged, town officials became embroiled in political infighting and the mayor and town council created a caustic work environment for town employees. The mayor, he alleged, harassed his staff and undermined his ability to manage them and the vice mayor not only berated him in public, he subjected him to drunken and belligerent phone calls at night.

Medical conditions. According to the employee, this hostility intensified his anxiety, depression, and high blood pressure, causing crippling anxiety, disorientation, insomnia, hopelessness, and even higher blood pressure. He also began suffering from panic attacks that interfered with his ability to perform basic tasks.

Reasonable accommodation letter. He filed EEOC charges in September and December 2017, and in January 2018 an attorney representing the employee and two of his colleagues sent a letter, entitled “Accommodations Requests,” to town officials. Although it referenced the ADA in its opening line, its “overall aim” was “to foster a well-running office, based on the principles of mutual respect, clear communication, and... well-defined roles.”

It also specified 12 “requests,” including, among other things, compliance with the city’s ethics code; adherence to defined roles; an end to the incessant threats of termination; courtesy and care in communications; equal treatment for employees; and improved gender diversity in hiring and management. It did not, however, mention the employee’s medical conditions or explain how the proposed requests could alleviate these conditions.

Resignation. When the town, in April 2018, purportedly informed the employee that it would engage in an interactive process to determine an appropriate accommodation, he requested “short breaks and reduced stress.” In response, town officials allegedly increased their harassment of the employee, forcing him to resign the following month.

Lower court proceedings. The employee then sued, asserting claims under the ADA and for breach of contract. The district court dismissed his ADA claims but allowed his breach of contract claim to proceed. The employee amended his complaint and while the court allowed his retaliation and accommodation claims to advance, it ruled that the “Accommodations Requests” letter was not an ADA accommodation request and could not serve as a predicate for either claim, which limited his accommodation claim to his request for “short breaks and reduced stress.” It subsequently granted summary judgment to the town on his ADA claims. His breach of contract claim advanced to trial but the jury found for the town.

Accommodation request. On appeal, the employee first argued that the district court erred in ruling that the “Accommodations Requests” letter was not an accommodation request under the ADA. Agreeing with the court below, the Fourth Circuit noted that while “the burden of requesting an accommodation is light, not every work-related request by a disabled employee constitutes a request for accommodation under the ADA.” Rather, said the court, the “adequacy of a request depends on how a reasonable employer would view the employee’s communication in the surrounding circumstances.”

Substance over title. Not only must a communication be sufficiently direct and specific, it must also provide notice of the employee’s need for a special accommodation for a medical condition, the court observed, and simply calling a list of suggestions an accommodation request is not enough to provide the employer with sufficient notice. Instead, the court explained, there must be “a logical bridge connecting the employee’s disability to the workplace changes he requests” and the substance of the request must be sufficient to allow the employer to infer that it relates to the employee’s disability. “The substance of the employee’s communication, not its title, determines whether the ADA applies.”

Finding that logical bridge missing here, the court pointed out that most of the suggestions in the “Accommodations Requests” letter had no perceptible relation to the employee’s disability. To a reasonable employer, said the court, the letter could simply appear to be a list of grievances and suggestions complied in response to workplace politics and personality conflicts. Accordingly, the district court did not err in finding that the letter was not an ADA accommodation request.

Discrimination claim. Addressing next the employee’s contention that the district court erred in dismissing his ADA discrimination claim and denying him leave to amend, the Fourth Circuit found he failed to allege any facts suggesting the town harbored a discriminatory motive. Though he pointed to the town’s failure to engage in the interactive process in response to his “Accommodations Requests” letter, because the letter was not a valid accommodation request, this argument failed.

Nor was the court persuaded by his argument that the temporal proximity between his EEOC filings and his constructive discharge, along with the town’s escalating hostility during this period, supported a reasonable inference of discrimination. While this was sufficient to state a retaliation claim, there was nothing to suggest the town mistreated him because of his disabilities, rather than personal and political conflicts, said the court, noting further that he alleged that other town officials were also harassed by the same council members. Accordingly, the court affirmed dismissal of this claim as well.

ADA interference. Turning finally to whether, as the employee contended, the district court erred in dismissing his ADA interference claim, the court found nothing to suggest the town coerced, threatened, intimidated, or interfered with his ADA rights. The town’s hostile conduct may have exacerbated his disabilities but he did not allege that the town did this to prevent him from filing EEOC charges, requesting further accommodations, or pursuing other protected action under the ADA, said the court, noting that “the mere fact that this conduct might have had an adverse effect on his health does not amount to unlawful interference.”

And even if he had plausibly pled interference, the court again pointed to his failure to allege the town harbored a discriminatory motive. Rather, he alleged there was political turmoil and conflicting personalities and he often found himself in conflict with elected officials. “But however seriously the conditions at Town Hall may have exacerbated [his] anxiety, depression, and high blood pressure, [the employee] fails to allege that Town officials harassed him because of these disabilities,” the court stated, finding the district court did not err in dismissing his interference claim.

The case is No. 21-2261.

Attorneys: Monica Lynn Mroz (Strelka Employment Law) for Gregory Warren Kelly. Cameron Scott Bell (Penn, Stuart & Eskridge) for Town of Abingdon, Virginia.

Companies: Town of Abingdon, Virginia

MainStory: TopStory DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge PublicEmployees MarylandNews NorthCarolinaNews SouthCarolinaNews VirginiaNews WestVirginiaNews GCNNews