In a recent decision, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that an employer may be required to modify an employee’s work schedule in order to accommodate difficulties in commuting to and from work as a result of a disability. 

In Colwell v. Rite Aid Corp., the plaintiff was a clerk at Rite-Aid who became blind in her left eye.  She informed her supervisor that, as a result of her partial blindness, it was dangerous and difficult for her to drive to work at night and, as public transportation was not available, asked to work only shifts during the day.  The plaintiff‘s request was denied repeatedly, prompting her to resign her job position and file suit against Rite-Aid for violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), amongst other claims, for failing to accommodate her partial blindness. 

The federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of Rite-Aid, holding that Rite-Aid was not required to accommodate the plaintiff as she did not need an accommodation to perform her job once she arrived at work and, therefore, her requested accommodation “had nothing to do with the work environment or the manner and circumstances under which she performed her work.”    

On appeal, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s narrow interpretation of the ADA, holding as a matter of law that changing the plaintiff’s work schedule to accommodate her disability related to difficulties in getting to work is “a type of accommodation that the ADA contemplates.”  In doing so, the appellate court cited both the plain language and the legislative history of the ADA which contemplated “modified work schedules” for individuals with mobility impairments who had challenges in getting to and from work. 

Thus, the Third Circuit opined that the ADA does not strictly limit the breadth of reasonable accommodations to address only those problems that an employee has in performing her work that arise once she arrives at the workplace.  The appellate court also pointed out that its decision does not make the employer responsible for how an employee gets to work.  However, a change in shift “is clearly a change in a workplace condition entirely under the employer’s control” and thus an employer is capable of accommodating a change in shift if such a request is reasonable.  As no evidence had been presented as to the reasonableness of the plaintiff’s request nor as to any undue burden on Rite Aid in potentially having to accommodate her, the appellate court left to a jury the factual issue of whether the plaintiff’s shift change request was “reasonable . . . under the circumstances.” 

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.