Advertisement

May 18, 2013

The Inability To Work Overtime Is Not ADA Disability

In today’s economy, employers are asking more from fewer employees. Usually, this reality manifests itself in required overtime. Lately, however, employees are resisting or refusing to work overtime invoking protections under the Family Medical Leave Act and, most recently, the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”). What do you do if an employee who is able to work a 40-hour workweek, claims he or she cannot work overtime due to a disability?

That was the issue confronting the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit (overseeing Virginia and other states) in Boitnott vs. Corning Incorporated, decided February 10, 2012. Boitnott was a mechanical engineer who had consistently worked overtime shifts for over a decade. He took a substantial medical leave related to Leukemia treatment. Returning from leave, his physician limited him to working no more than eight hours a day and 40 hours a week. Corning declined to reinstate Boitnott, claiming that he was not disabled under the ADA since he could work a full 40 hour workweek. Boitnott filed a charge of disability discrimination with the EEOC, which found “reasonable cause” to believe Corning had violated the ADA. Boitnott filed suit under the ADA claiming Corning’s refusal to allow him to return to only a 40 hour workweek was a refusal to accommodate his disability. The trial court disagreed and dismissed his claims. The Court of Appeals also disagreed and affirmed dismissal of his claims. The Court held that an employee is not substantially limited in a major life activity under the ADA if he or she can work a 40 hour workweek but is simply incapable of working overtime due to an impairment.

Claims of inability to work overtime or to work more than eight hours/day are increasingly common as a device to avoid working overtime. Claims of stress, fatigue, fibromyalgia, etc. are typically used. Every Federal Court of Appeals to have considered this issue has decided that an employee who is capable of working a 40 hour workweek but cannot work overtime is not disabled under the ADA and is not entitled to reasonable accommodation to avoid overtime.

©2002-2013 Fowler White Boggs P.A. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

About the Author

Shareholder

Kelly H. Kolb has defended employment claims for over 20 years before State and federal courts, administrative bodies and arbitration panels. He has successfully defended State and Federal discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation, USERRA, FLSA overtime, wrongful termination, wage, and unemployment claims. He has fought FLSA overtime compliance audits by the U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, and has successfully litigated FLSA collective action overtime suits. He has successfully litigated ERISA and COBRA claims, defending both employers and plan administrators. He has...

954-703-3944

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.