A Pennsylvania healthcare system, including Geisinger Health, Geisinger Health System Foundation, and Geisinger Wyoming Valley Medical Center ("Geisinger") settled with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") for $450,000 after the EEOC sued the entities for disability discrimination.

The EEOC alleged that since January 2018, Geisinger's policies and practices caused workers with disabilities to be denied reasonable accommodations. This included job protected leave and reassignment free from competition as reasonable accommodations.

Geisinger's policies allegedly limited job-protected leave to a specific duration and returning employees were required to apply and compete for their own job position upon return if it was vacant. Alternatively, returning employees had to compete and be selected for another job position within two months of their return to work.

Further, Geisinger allegedly manipulated job vacancies and postings to make it more difficult for employees with disabilities to secure their prior job position or get a new job when returning from leave.

The EEOC alleged these policies and practices violated the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). In addition to the $450,000 payment, the settlement enjoins Geisinger from discriminating on the basis of disability. Geisinger must also consider modifications and/or exceptions to existing policies and reassignment without competition as forms of reasonable accommodations and submit periodic reports to the EEOC regarding employees terminated after taking leave among other non-monetary remedies.

Source: https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/geisinger-health-entities-pay-450000-eeoc-disability-and-retaliation-lawsuit

Commentary

Return-to-work policies must always be open to exceptions for those who need accommodations for a disability that require them to be absent from the workplace for an extended period of time.

Without flexibility and proper considerations, a healthcare system's standardized leave policies and return-to-work competition requirements can lead to sizeable monetary losses.

Disability accommodations are determined, with the assistance of the employee's healthcare provider, on a case-by-case basis that considers the employee's job duties, the disability, the way in which the particular employee is limited by the disability, and appropriate reasonable accommodations to allow the employee to perform the essential functions. Only if an employer can show an undue hardship can accommodations be denied. 

Undue hardship is established by several factors to be considered, which include, according to the EEOC: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/enforcement-guidance-reasonable-accommodation-and-undue-hardship-under-ada#undue

• "The nature and cost of the accommodation needed
• The overall financial resources of the facility making the reasonable accommodation; the number of persons employed at this facility; the effect on expenses and resources of the facility
• The overall financial resources, size, number of employees, and type and location of facilities of the employer (if the facility involved in the reasonable accommodation is part of a larger entity)
• The type of operation of the employer, including the structure and functions of the workforce, the geographic separateness, and the administrative or fiscal relationship of the facility involved in making the accommodation to the employer and
• The impact of the accommodation on the operation of the facility.^"

Consideration, and proof, of each factor should be carefully documented. Courts can consider additional factors, if they choose.

Once an employee shows an accommodation seems reasonable on its face, the burden of proof shifts, and is much higher on the employer, who must then show specific evidence of the factors used to claim undue hardship in the particular circumstances in order to deny the accommodation.

The final takeaway is that healthcare organizations must evaluate requests for accommodation carefully and should seek legal counsel before denying such requests.