In Core v. Champaign Bd. Co. 3:11-cv-166 (2012), David Riepenhoff and Frank Hatfield were successful in obtaining summary judgment on behalf of Champaign County Board of County Commissioners (“Champaign DJFS”). Ms. Core worked for the Champaign DJFS as a social worker beginning in 2003. Her job duties included, among others, inspecting day care facilities, meeting with clients, performing trainings, and accessing confidential files located only at the Champaign DJFS. Beginning in 2008 Ms. Core claimed to have difficulty breathing when exposed to perfumes and fragrances. Later she claimed Japanese Cherry Blossom perfume triggered her asthma. Plaintiff reported approximately five incidents of perfume exposure from 2008 to early 2010. Ms. Core’s treating nurse practitioner opined that Ms. Core required a work environment free of perfumes, fragrances and/or allergens.
Over a period of several years the Champaign DJFS attempted to accommodate Ms. Core’s alleged condition. For example, it offered Ms. Core the ability to use an inhaler, exit the building, notify employees to contact Ms. Core via email/phone if possible, post notices at the DJFS requesting that people refrain from wearing Japanese Cherry Blossom perfume among other offers of accommodation. Ms. Core refused them all demanding a fragrance-free/allergen-free workplace or to work from home. The Champaign DJFS advised Ms. Core that it would be impossible to meet her demands. Ms. Core filed suit claiming that the Champaign DJFS violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) by not fulfilling her demands and claimed under state law that she was discriminated against due to her disability.
Initially, the Champaign DJFS moved to dismiss the case on the pleadings due to the impossibility of fulfilling Ms. Core’s demands. The Court, as required, viewed the facts pled by Ms. Core to be true. Accordingly, the Court denied the motion because assuming Ms. Core’s facts to be true telecommunicating and/or working from home might be reasonable. As a result, discovery (e.g. depositions, exchange of documents) occurred at the end of which the Champaign DJFS filed for summary judgment.
The Court granted summary judgment to the Champaign DJFS on all claims for several reasons. First, it found Ms. Core to not be disabled because her condition did not substantially limit her breathing. Even assuming Ms. Core to be disabled the Court held that her claims fail for several reasons. A perfume-free environment and/or Ms. Core working from home are unreasonable. Also, the Champaign DJFS offered several reasonable accommodations all of which were rejected by Ms. Core. Additionally, the Champaign DJFS engaged in good faith in discussions with Ms. Core to identify a reasonable accommodation.
It must be noted that since Ms. Core’s alleged perfume exposure “predominately” predate the change in the ADA regulations, it analyzed her alleged disability under the regulations prior to January 1, 2009. Current regulations provide for a cursory review of disability under a broader definition which is likely to result in more people being considered disabled under the ADA. As such, subsequent cases will likely focus on whether a disabled employee can be reasonably accommodated and not the alleged disability.
Based upon Core v Champaign Co. employers should anticipate that it will be difficult to get cases dismissed based solely upon the Plaintiff’s pleadings. More importantly, employers are well advised to take an employee’s alleged condition and request to accommodate seriously. The Champaign DJFS took this matter seriously and undertook significant efforts over several years in an attempt to accommodate Ms. Core. Such efforts were not lost on the Court as its decision cites several examples of the Champaign DJFS’ good faith efforts.
For more information regarding this case, or to request a copy of the decision, please contact Frank Hatfield at fhatfield@downesfishel.com.