Disabilities and the Academic Workplace

Academe, Sep/Oct 2004 by Euben, Donna R

A professor who suffers from multiple sclerosis lacks the energy to teach evening seminars. A researcher with chronic depression fails to show up for lab. Since the academic community faces many such situations, we need to understand how the "reasonable accommodations" legal requirement applies to the disabled in the academic workplace.

The federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination in employment "against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability." The act defines a "qualified individual" ax one "who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of [the] position." Such discrimination includes the failure to make "reasonable accommodations" for qualified persons unless such accommodations impose an "undue hardship."

In 2002 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in University of Alabama v. Garreff that public employers, including state colleges and universities, are not subject to individual suits for monetary damages under the ADA. Nevertheless, individuals may still sue public universities for injunctive, or nonmonetary, relief under the ADA. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission may also bring ADA suits for monetary damages on behalf of individuals. Furthermore, public employers may still be sued under state antidiscrimination laws, which often mirror the ADA. Lastly, some faculty handbooks and, where applicable, collective bargaining agreements may extend ADA protections to faculty at state institutions.

Depending on the specific facts and circumstances of the case, courts consider reasonable accommodations in the academic workplace to be reassignment of nonessential duties, the acquisition of equipment or interpretation services, modified class schedules or course loads, and limited extension of the tenure clock.

Generally the reallocation of essential functions of an appointment is not a reasonable accommodation. In 1996 Robert Horton, an assistant professor who suffered from chronic headaches and a nervous disorder, alleged that Truman College violated the ADA when it terminated his appointment. The federal district court disagreed, ruling that Horton's disability prevented him from performing the essential functions of his appointment: to "prepare, attend and teach classes." The court found that the college had more than reasonably accommodated Horton when it modified his course schedule and granted him a five-year leave of absence. The following year, in an unpublished opinion, the federal appellate court rejected Horton's appeal.

Sometimes relatively minor accommodations may enable disabled academics to perform their essential duties. In 2003 Jean Boise Cargill, an academic librarian who suffered from rheumatoid arthritis, sued Harvard University in state court, alleging that it failed to accommodate her handicap and discriminated against her based on her disability by terminating her appointment. (While the case arose under state law, the accommodation analysis is similar to that of the ADA.) The case raised the question of whether, in addition to the "relatively cerebral and academic research and reference functions" of the position, two physical tasks-book retrieval and shelving-were essential functions of Cargill's position and, if so, whether she could have performed them with reasonable accommodations.

The appellate court overturned a lower court's ruling for the university, finding conflicting evidence existed on whether the physical tasks were essential functions of the job and, if they were, the failure of the administration to discuss accommodations after Cargill notified it of her degenerative condition. Cargill had suggested a number of alternatives including using a shelving cart and shelving materials the next day rather than the same day. The administration responded, however, that book shelving was required the same day, and that no money was allocated to accommodate Cargill's work.

In 1997 Barbara Meling, an assistant professor of physical education who suffered from knee and shoulder injuries caused by a car accident, sued St. Francis College in New York for terminating her appointment. A district court rejected the administration's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Meling had submitted "ample evidence" that she could have performed the essential functions of her appointment if provided an assistant who could demonstrate physical skills while she lectured.

By engaging in good faith conversations about reasonable accommodations, the academic community can ensure the ongoing provision of quality teaching, research, and service while accommodating disabled colleagues in performing the essential functions of their appointments.

Donna Euben is AALJP counsel.