October 26, 2020

Volume X, Number 300

Advertisement

October 23, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Sixth Circuit Holds Full-Time Presence at Work not Essential Simply Because an Employer Says So

On July 17, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reminded employers that determining the essential functions of a position is a highly fact specific endeavor in which categorical rules do not apply.

In Hosttetler v. College of Wooster, Heidi Hostettler worked as a full-time HR Generalist. After giving birth to her child, Hostettler experienced severe postpartum depression and separation anxiety. As a result, Hostetller’s physician determined it was medically necessary that she worked a reduced schedule and recommended that Hostettler return to work on a part-time basis for the “foreseeable future.”  After two months of working an accommodated schedule, Hostetller’s employer terminated her employment stating that she was being discharged because she was “unable to return to her assigned position of HR Generalist in a full time capacity.”  Hostetller brought suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer holding that Hostetller was not a qualified individual with a disability because full-time work was an essential function of Hostetller’s position.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision. The Sixth Circuit first dismissed the employer’s argument that Hostetller’s separation anxiety and depression did not constitute a disability. The court went on to further hold that regular, in-person attendance, while an essential function of most jobs, is not unconditionally so. Because Hostettler presented evidence that her department was running smoothly, and she was able to satisfy all her core tasks while working her part-time schedule, the employer’s own categorization of the position as full-time was not enough to preclude Hostettler’s claims.

This case is a great reminder to employers that the realities of the position will control over the words contained in a job description. Even though the employer in Hostettler classified her position as full-time, the court made it clear that merely stating that full-time employment is an essential function will not relieve an employer of its responsibilities under the ADA when the employer is unable to explain why full-time employment is necessary. After Hostetller, employers are reminded to take a look at job descriptions to ensure they reflect the realities of the position. 

© 2020 BARNES & THORNBURG LLPNational Law Review, Volume VIII, Number 201
Advertisement

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS

Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Justine Farris-Niehuas, Barnes Thornburg Law Firm, Indianapolis, Labor and Employment Attorney
Associate

Justine is an associate in the Labor and Employment Department in Barnes & Thornburg’s Indianapolis office.

Prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg full-time, Ms. Farris was a summer associate in the Indianapolis office. She also gained experience as a judicial extern to the Honorable Timothy Oaks, Marion County Superior Court.

In 2017, Ms. Farris earned her J.D., summa cum laude, from the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law and received the honor of Chancellor’s Scholar for graduating first...

317-261-7855
Advertisement
Advertisement