Many of us are adversely impacted by the winter doldrums, usually precipitated by cold temperatures, snow and lack of sunlight.  However, some people’s symptoms are severe enough to be diagnosed with a condition called Seasonal Affect Disorder (SAD), a depression triggered by limited daylight in winter and for which treatment may include exposure to intense lamps that simulate natural light.

Last fall, a federal appeals court held that SAD is a disability protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  For an employee to be entitled to a workplace accommodation under the ADA, the employee must prove that a disability substantially impairs his or her life and that the accommodation does not cause an undue hardship on the employer. Psychological disabilities have, generally, been recognized as protected under the ADA and the number of discrimination complaints filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) related to anxiety, depression and other psychiatric disorders has nearly doubled between 2005 and 2009.

In Ekstrand v. School District of Somerset, the plaintiff was a teacher who was moved to a basement classroom lacking exterior windows.  Subsequently, she complained to the principal that she had SAD and would have difficulty functioning in a room without natural light. She repeatedly requested a room with natural light, but never got one, notwithstanding the fact that another teacher was willing to switch with her and there was an empty classroom being held open for a possible additional class.  As the year progressed, the teacher began experiencing symptoms of the disorder, such as fatigue, anxiety, hyper-vigilance, tearfulness, racing thoughts, and trouble organizing tasks.  Her anxiety and depression worsened to such a degree that she went out on disability leave as recommended by her doctor, who wrote a letter to the school district explaining that natural light would be the key to the teacher being able to return to work.

Nonetheless, the school district failed to accommodate her with a room with natural light, prompting her to file suit under the ADA, arguing that the school district violated the ADA by failing to provide her with a reasonable accommodation. 

Initially, the appellate court held that the teacher presented evidence that she was “a qualified individual with a disability” as her mental health condition became sufficiently serious to substantially limit her teaching ability and that she otherwise could have performed her essential job functions had she been provided a room lacking the various stressors that exacerbated her disorder. 

The appellate court further found that the school district was aware of her disability and that, once it became aware of natural light’s medical necessity to the teacher, the school district was obligated to provide the specifically requested, medically necessary accommodation unless it “would impose an undue hardship” on the school district.  The appellate court ultimately concluded that providing the teacher with an available classroom with exterior windows would have imposed "little hardship" on the school district.

This newsletter is a publication of Nochumson P.C. and is intended for general information only. It should not be construed as legal advice with respect to any particular situation, and readers should not act upon information contained in this newsletter without first consulting an attorney. Copyright © 2009.