25 min read
In this guide, you’ll learn how to carefully consider whether a disability accommodation is reasonable versus unreasonable under the ADA for your particular farm or ranch operation.
Did you know that Institutional members and Legal Professional members can download this resource as a PDF?
Determining when it’s reasonable versus unreasonable for a farm employer to provide an employee with a disability accommodation requires careful consideration. The last thing any hard-working, well-intentioned farmer wants is a discrimination lawsuit which can happen on the basis of disability.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that employers provide accommodations that are reasonable to employees with disabilities. This means making reasonable changes in the workplace environment or modifications to how a job is performed so that the employee can succeed in the position. However, employers do not have to provide accommodations that cause an undue hardship to the business.
This basic legal explanation doesn’t really illustrate how “reasonable,” “undue hardship,” and “essential job functions” are defined in real, day-to-day life. To help draw that picture, the stories of hypothetical farmers Raina, Zed, and Keshon in our guide Accommodation Strategies for Farm and Ranch Employers provide excellent examples of what types of accommodations might appear on the farm. But what happens when a farmer faces an accommodation request that feels difficult to fulfill? And how do you determine what’s reasonable for your particular farm or ranch business, according to the law?
This guide continues the stories of the farmers’ employment obligations while digging deeper to illustrate the limits of the ADA on the farm.
As is often true with the law, there aren’t always clear-cut answers. When it comes to disability accommodations, each situation’s particular facts and nuances come into play. Any agency or court looking at the issue will start afresh, looking at the specific situation. Statutes and regulations provide some guidelines and federal agencies offer a little more insight, but both could be (and have been) overruled by the slower-moving court system. This leaves employers needing to understand somewhat vague specifications and then make good-faith decisions. What is clear is that any farm employer faced with a job applicant or employee requesting accommodation must engage in the five step process described in Accommodation Strategies for Farm and Ranch Employers, which we’ll review below.
Farms are generally dangerous workplaces with heavy equipment and demanding physical labor. This kind of work environment may lend itself to fewer accommodations than could be provided in, for example, a strictly office environment. It will also be more common for folks with certain physical disabilities to be unable to perform the essential functions of a farming job, even with accommodation. However, where accommodations are possible and effective, the employer is legally obligated to provide them.
The most risk-averse way to approach an accommodation request is to provide it. However, that will not always be possible. Business owners do not have to grant every accommodation request. Employers can deny accommodation requests for reasons of cost, fear of harm to the employee or their co-workers, or because the accommodation changes the fundamental nature of the job. The legal terms employers use to defend against a claim of disability discrimination (filed as a result of denying the accommodation) are that the accommodation causes an undue hardship on the business or poses a direct threat to the health and safety of workers.
Let’s revisit farmers Raina, Zed, and Keshon to discuss the issues raised by their employees’ requests for accommodations and what other options might be available to farm business owners.
Farmer Raina hired their Uncle Chris to help manage the vegetable and fruit stand. Unfortunately, Uncle Chris was diagnosed with cancer mid-season and had to start treatment immediately. He was able to undergo treatment and continue working, but his prescribed medication made him extremely fatigued. Uncle Chris first asked for an accommodation of more scheduled breaks throughout the day. Farmer Raina decided this request was reasonable and did not create an undue hardship for the business.
Discerning farmers reading this story may be wondering:
It can feel uncomfortable to confront these questions as they can seem callous in the face of a person struggling with a severe health condition like cancer. However, these questions may be necessary to balance the business’s survival with supporting a struggling employee. When possible, businesses accommodate their employees. If the accommodation threatens the business’s health, employers can look more closely at what the agencies and courts have said in similar situations.
Employers are generally expected to act as Farmer Raina did and provide additional break time to disabled employees. The law often goes further and requires employers to modify schedules, allow employees to use accrued leave, or extend unpaid leave as an accommodation request. We’ll get into those accommodations later on. For now, we’ll just focus on breaks.
Let’s explore when additional breaks for an employee may cause an undue hardship. (Recall that if it isn’t an undue hardship for Farmer Raina, they need to honor the request.)
First, this assessment is individualized and takes into account the specific business in question including the nature of the business, its assets, the number of employees, and the effect of the modification on business operations. There is no single answer that works for all businesses. For the most part, accommodations that cause significant difficulty or expense may cause undue hardship.
So, how do we know if a farm suffers from significant difficulty or expense, as a result of providing additional breaks? A farmer who has (a) no other farm stand employees or employees who could cover for Uncle Chris during his breaks, (b) no funds to hire another farm stand employee, and (c) an anticipated drop in customer sales from multiple closures throughout the day might successfully argue the breaks would cause an undue hardship. On the other hand, a farm stand with multiple employees may be able to find someone to cover for Uncle Chris as he takes breaks throughout the day. Perhaps Uncle Chris’ breaks could be timed to periods of the day with low sales, minimizing the impact. It all depends.
The overall budget and health of the business are large factors in determining if a genuine undue hardship exists. For example, one court found a hospital with an operational budget of $1.7 billion must provide an ASL interpreter for a deaf employee (even though the cost of the interpreter was twice the employee’s annual pay.) Businesses with more resources at their disposal are expected to have the flexibility to make accommodations. The converse may also be true- businesses with fewer resources have less ability to absorb the costs of accommodations.
One thing is certain: A farm employer who denies a request for accommodation because it causes an undue hardship must be able to explain that reasoning in detail and have evidence to back it up. Documentation is always valuable, but especially so when dealing with accommodations. Developing and documenting the business owner’s reason helps with the next obligation- the “interactive process.” It also develops resiliency in case the business needs to defend itself in court.
Employers are required to engage in what is called an “interactive process” with their employees who request an accommodation. If Farmer Raina decides more breaks throughout the day cause an undue hardship, they must discuss the issue with Uncle Chris. Together, they need to discuss if there is another accommodation that would be effective but would not be an undue hardship. If there is, Farmer Raina is required to provide it.
For example, Farmer Raina may offer Uncle Chris a stool or place to sit when there are lulls in customer traffic. If the job, or parts of the job, can be effectively performed sitting down, then offering this slight modification to the work environment may suit. This example highlights an important principle: an employer is not required to accept the first accommodation request. The interactive process between employer and employee aims to find the most reasonable accommodation that allows the employee to maintain employment and allows the business to function without undue hardship.
In Accommodation Strategies for Farm and Ranch Employers, Uncle Chris returns to Farmer Raina and asks for a second accommodation as his cancer treatment continues. His second request was that he do only desk work as the farm stand attendant.
While Farmer Raina wasn’t concerned that this request would negatively impact her business, other farm owners might be unable to provide a desk-only job without suffering undue hardship. Previously, we discussed the relevance of financial and practical concerns around accommodations. Now, we’re tackling a separate factor that may also be considered an undue hardship: the essential functions of the job.
Let’s jump right in and apply this factor to Uncle Chris by assessing the essential functions of his position: Is part of the farm stand attendant’s job to restock the shelves throughout the day? How about approaching customers on the floor and offering assistance? If these are required aspects of the job, then an employee confined to a desk all day could not fulfill these essential functions. Therefore, that employee would no longer be qualified for the farm stand position, and the accommodation request would not have to be honored legally. Farmer Raina might be able to find a different job to transfer Uncle Chris into (this is called reassignment, which we’ll get into more later). But as for the farm stand attendant job, Uncle Chris’ new limitations may potentially leave him unable to fulfill the essential functions and Farmer Raina may not be legally obligated to accommodate him.
The important question to ask here is: what are the job’s essential functions? We certainly need clarity in order to assess whether someone can perform those functions. The most likely place to find a job’s essential functions is in the written job description. Job descriptions are often prepared when announcing and hiring for a position, as well as for ongoing evaluation and communication with employees. The job description is the first source for pinpointing a job’s essential functions, but there may be other sources. If a job description doesn’t exist (or is out of date or otherwise inaccurate), the employer and employee will need to look at the reality of what the employee does on the job to identify essential functions.
Once we have a clear idea of what the position requires, we also need to ask some other questions to figure out if a person can meet the essential functions:
Getting back to Uncle Chris, we need to ask: can he perform the essential functions of the farm stand attendant job while sitting at a desk? Suppose restocking shelves throughout the day is an essential function of the job. How often does restocking occur? If the farm stand attendant only restocked rarely, say once every two weeks, then this aspect of the job may not be considered essential or could easily be reassigned to a different employee. On the other hand, a farm stand attendant expected to restock shelves multiple times throughout the day would consider that function essential to the job. A task that is seldom or never requested will not become “essential” just because it is listed in the job description.
However, infrequency doesn’t necessarily mean unessential. The business owner can also consider the consequences of not performing the essential function. For example, a firefighter rarely actually carries a person from a burning building, but if that firefighter were not able to carry out that job function at the correct time, there would be dire consequences. Unless a farm stand is rarely visited, having the attendant restock and move around the farm stand may be an essential aspect of the job. Without restocking, the produce may be out too long, or customers will not have ample selection. Business would suffer. In this case, the farmer would not have to make the accommodation. Other factors, of course, could change this analysis. This accommodation would remain reasonable if other employees worked the farm stand that could attend to the restocking and customer service while Uncle Chris was stationary at the cash register.
If a farm business owner decides that Uncle Chris’ accommodation request isn’t reasonable for their operation, and they’ve gone through the interactive process to discuss alternatives and come up short, the final option is for an employer to consider reassignment. Reassignment is warranted if a vacant position is available for which the disabled employee is qualified. If there are other, better-qualified candidates for the position, the employer does not have to reassign the disabled employee. Furthermore, an accommodation that conflicts with a company’s seniority system is unreasonable.
Let’s use an example to understand this better. Say a farmer employs 16 workers. They reserve two greenhouse positions for employees who have put in three or more years, are familiar with the planting schedule, and show promise for developing into farm operators themselves. The employee handbook describes these positions and their qualifications. A first-year employee assigned to field work injures their leg at the beginning of the season and asks for the accommodation of working in the greenhouse. Greenhouse workers can sit on stools as they seed and do other maintenance and don’t have to move around as much or as quickly as field workers do. However, this reassignment conflicts with the already established seniority system. In this case, the farm owner would be within their rights to deny the accommodation. Under these circumstances, the law would not require the employer to fulfill this accommodation.
This means Farmer Raina would not be required to create a new position for Uncle Chris or remove or demote any other employee. However, if a vacant position for which Uncle Chris is qualified is available, then that job must be offered to him as a reasonable accommodation.
There is one final consideration for Uncle Chris’ situation. Let’s now assume that Uncle Chris is a field worker who (somehow) can continue working during his cancer treatment. As tomato season rolls around, Farmer Raina wonders if Uncle Chris is still qualified for his position. That’s because Uncle Chris’ field job requires him to apply copper sulfate to the tomato field every 10 days throughout the season. Farmer Raina is aware of a connection between copper sulfate exposure and an increased cancer risk. Because of this, Raina fears the job would endanger his recovery.
Now, Farmer Raina starts wondering if they could get in trouble if they let Uncle Chris continue in this job that may harm him. Could Uncle Chris bring a claim against Raina later on, saying that Raina knew he was in danger and let it happen? (Assume additional protective equipment or reassigning this task isn’t an option, for the sake of this example.)
Farmer Raina needs the law’s guidance on direct threats. A direct threat is a situation where a worker’s actions create a substantial risk of harm to the health or safety of the worker or their coworkers. If an employee’s situation creates that kind of threat and there are no accommodations that could eliminate the risk, an employer is within their rights to refuse to hire or retain that employee. The legal rationale is that, though it’s unfortunate to lose a job, it’s better than allowing the employee to expose themselves or others to a significant risk of harm.
Having explained what a direct threat is and its effect, let’s get into more details. Any claimed threat must be real and dire. Objective, scientific evidence must support the idea that a direct threat exists. An employer cannot refuse to hire or retain an employee because of a hunch or a simple belief that the job would be harmful to the employee. However, the employee does not have to agree with the assessment that they are under direct threat because of their job.
Many times, when courts agree that an employee’s disability poses a direct threat to themselves because of their job, it is because the job involves heavy machinery and the worker experiences unexpected incapacitations. The risk posed by this combination is obvious. It explains why an employer in this situation was held blameless for firing an employee with untreatable epilepsy who worked near fast-moving, extremely hot equipment and machines. It also underscores why an employer would not be required to retain a narcoleptic employee for a carpentry job that requires the use of power saws.
In rare cases, courts have held that non-immediate health impacts could constitute a direct threat to a disabled employee. An oil refinery employer could, for example, legally deny employment to an employee with a liver condition that would be exacerbated by continued exposure to toxins at an oil refinery. This situation is similar to Farmer Raina’s, but how would Raina decide if having Uncle Chris work with copper sulfate is substantial enough of a direct threat that they can legally terminate his job?
Farmer Raina is aware of studies linking copper to a high risk of cancer mortality. However, they also know that although the EPA acknowledges copper’s toxicity on other grounds, they don’t issue warnings about higher cancer risks or mortality due to its use. So, there isn’t necessarily scientific consensus on the issue. There would be a stronger case if Raina could get a doctor’s opinion on the risk to Uncle Chris from routine copper application or more clarity on current research from a reputable scientific source. In the end, if Raina is convinced that there is a high probability of substantial harm to Uncle Chris if he works this job, then Raina does not have to retain him in that position. Whether Raina may have to later defend her decision in court is a separate and more difficult question! In the least, Raina needs to make sure they have documented their research and decision-making so they can bring it to court, if needed.
Deciding what accommodations are reasonable, which functions of the job are essential, and who is qualified are all balancing acts. The employer must balance business needs with the employee’s needs while also considering the nature of the farming operation. If a job poses a direct threat to an employee, the employer is tasked with finding objective scientific evidence to support their decision that the employee would not be safe on the job. Of course, this process is to be done after considering any reasonable accommodations that would remove the threat to the employee. Every situation is different, but the analysis remains the same.
Below you’ll find a review of the reasonability framework we just went through. Before using the framework, remember that employers must provide reasonable accommodations to disabled employees, unless it creates an undue hardship for the business. Employees must be able to perform essential job functions, with or without accommodations.
Farm employers can use this five-step framework to assess the reasonability of accommodation requests from employees and potential new hires.
The 5-Step Reasonability Framework for Farm Employers:
Now, we’re going to consider a second story raised in Accommodation Strategies for Farm and Ranch Employers. As readers may remember, Farmer Zed’s flower farm manager, Kyle, recently shared with Farmer Zed that he has ADHD, which has made completing work tasks difficult. Kyle requests a task list written on a whiteboard to keep track of assignments and progress throughout the day.
When reviewing Farmer Zed’s situation against what we learned so far, it’s quite straightforward. Farmer Zed should have little difficulty with this accommodation. Installing and using a whiteboard is likely low-cost and low-effort, so this request is highly unlikely to cause undue hardship to the business. There’s no need to engage in an interactive process to find a better solution if this one works for everyone. Kyle is having trouble staying organized, but his disability isn’t interfering with his ability to perform the essential functions of the job. There’s no need for reassignment, and Kyle isn’t posing a direct threat to himself or anyone else by continuing in this job. As far as reasonable accommodation requests go, this one is a breeze!
But, this ease isn’t always reflective of reality. Let’s consider other accommodation requests Kyle could have made that wouldn’t have been as easy for Farmer Zed to fulfill.
What if Kyle asked for an iPad that he could carry around with him to keep track of his tasks? Kyle could say that an iPad is more effective than a whiteboard because it could alert him as tasks were coming due, allow for remote updates, and transport easily to the field, packhouse, or toolshed. In this case, Farmer Zed may be more concerned about the cost of the accommodation. Depending on the nature of Farmer Zed’s operation, purchasing an iPad for employee use may cause an undue hardship.
Farmer Zed may also be concerned about the effectiveness of this accommodation request. She is wondering if having an iPad with him at all times may actually distract Kyle more than the lack of a task list. If an iPad were Kyle’s first accommodation request, this would be a perfect opportunity to engage in the interactive process and discuss other, still effective, accommodations. Farmer Zed might suggest the whiteboard as a counter to the iPad request. Alternatively, Farmer Zed might suggest adding a mid-morning and mid-afternoon check-in for a verbal assessment of Kyle’s progress for the day.
Farmer Zed’s situation is an ideal opportunity to consider tools as accommodations. Providing different tools or equipment to employees with disabilities is a frequent accommodation request for various disabilities. Requests like the whiteboard may be easy to fulfill, but what are the limits? Regulations are clear that employers do not have to provide personal use items that a worker would regularly use in daily life. This means an employer is not obligated to purchase their employee’s glasses or hearing aids. That’s the responsibility of the employees themselves. However, buying new or different tools and equipment for use solely on the job may be a reasonable accommodation, and thus required.
Consider a farm employee with carpal tunnel syndrome. Traditional gardening and farm tools may aggravate their pain. An employee’s field job may require near-daily use of a hand hoe as they maintain and cultivate flower beds. The farm’s provided hand hoe is a straight, traditional design. This employee may want an angled hand hoe that is much easier on their wrist. This employee could request the farmer purchase the ergonomic hand hoe as an accommodation at a cost of $30.00 or less. This accommodation request is likely reasonable because of the low cost. Similarly, it would be reasonable to provide a worker disabled due to a back injury with longer-reach tools or removable extensions for tools with short handles so that the worker does not aggravate their condition.
Sometimes, the distinction between a personal use item and a business item isn’t so clear-cut. For example, a farm employee with a prosthetic leg may need a new prosthetic foot better suited for rough terrain. Likely, this adaptation would cost thousands or tens of thousands of dollars. Some farms might be able to bear this cost without experiencing undue hardship, but other farms would not be able to do so. In cases where the special adaptation is not an undue hardship on the business, the employer may have to provide the adaptation as a reasonable accommodation.
It is common for visually impaired or deaf employees to require assistance seeing or hearing with either tools or an interpreter. Providing manuals in Braille or ASL interpreters for mandatory meetings may be required, but allowing employees to keep phones on them to facilitate communication may also be a more affordable and effective accommodation. Of course, as those items rise to the level of undue hardship, then the tool will not be a reasonable accommodation.
An employee may request a service animal to accompany them as an accommodation for their disability. Just like any other accommodation request, if it is reasonable and does not cause undue hardship, it must be granted. As in other cases, employers have the right to request documentation showing the accommodation is needed. A farm employer may also ask for documentation that the service animal is well-trained and won’t disrupt the operation. The employer can engage in an interactive process with the employee to determine if the service animal is the best or only option for accommodating the disability.
Service animals must be an authentic accommodation. The service animal must do more for the employee than make their job easier or ease their mind about a health condition. For the service animal to be an authentic accommodation, the animal must enable the employee to perform the essential functions of the job.
A farm that is GAP certified or subject to FSMA’s Produce Safety Rule may encounter an undue hardship because they cannot have domesticated animals in the fields or near produce. A farm in this position would need to speak with its auditor or enforcement agency to determine if there are allowances for service animals. They should also discuss what safeguards may preserve the certification or compliance if a service animal is present.
What if Kyle explained to Farmer Zed that his ADHD made it difficult for him to complete his greenhouse duties within the time allotted each day and asked for an accommodation of more time in the greenhouse each morning to complete the required tasks? The analysis here turns to the essential job functions and the related question of the employer’s quality standards for the job. Farmer Zed considers morning greenhouse duties an essential function of the Farm Manager job and has determined that those duties should be completed within two hours so that the field harvest begins on time. Kyle has asked for three hours to complete those tasks as an accommodation. Farmer Zed is genuinely concerned that the extension wouldn’t allow for the rest of the daily tasks to be completed.
If the greenhouse duties are an essential function of Kyle’s position and Farmer Zed has a business necessity for her employees to complete those duties within two hours or less, then Kyle’s accommodation request would not be considered reasonable. An employer is not required to lower quality or quantity standards for a position to make an accommodation. For example, a delivery business could deny the requested accommodation of a smaller delivery van with better suspension for a worker disabled by a hip injury because the smaller van would necessitate multiple delivery trips. Multiple trips would be inefficient and increase labor costs (the worker would have to work longer hours to complete the same amount of work) and maintenance (wear and tear on the smaller vehicle would increase). This business inefficiency was sufficient for a court to uphold the business’ decision to deny the accommodation. Similarly, if a cleaning service requires each employee to clean 16 rooms in a day, an employee who can only clean 10 rooms in a day would not be meeting standards, whether or not that employee was disabled. A disabled worker requesting an accommodation cannot redefine the job; the definition and expectations of the job are set by the employer.
Farmer Zed could deny Kyle’s request for an extra hour in the greenhouse, deeming it unreasonable. As always, Farmer Zed should work with Kyle to see if another accommodation would meet both his and the business’s needs. For example, say the greenhouse tasks were divided between Kyle and another worker. Through conversation with Farmer Zed, she learns that Kyle struggles switching between tasks. They might decide that Kyle could complete the work within the expected time frame if Kyle does one longer task instead of two or three smaller ones. This solution, rather than a time extension, would likely be a reasonable accommodation.
Just as employers can set quality and quantity standards, they can also set physical qualification standards for their jobs. However, if those physical qualification standards make individuals with disabilities ineligible for the job, the employer must be prepared to show that the physical qualification standard is job-related and consistent with business necessity. In addition to that initial justification, the employer needs to offer a reasonable accommodation that enables the disabled employee to meet the physical standard.
For example, let’s consider a farm job with an essential function of unloading shipments once a month, including boxes and feed bags that weigh up to 50 pounds. An employee who is disabled with a back injury is only able to lift 30 pounds. At first glance, this employee does not meet the physical qualifications of the job. However, if the employee requests an accommodation of a hand-truck, then the question of whether or not they meet the physical qualification standards disappears. The hand-truck will be unlikely to pose an undue hardship to the employer. Furthermore, the employee still meets the essential function of “unloading shipments,” whether with a hand-truck or by carrying the boxes and feed bags themself.
On the other hand, a disabled employee on the field harvest team who cannot stand for more than an hour at a time and also cannot carry crates of harvested vegetables back to the box truck may not be physically qualified for that position. For harvesters, the requirement that employees stand for long periods (up to eight hours a day) and carry their crates back to the box truck when full are essential functions of the job. In this case, the employer would be within their rights to remove a disabled employee from the field harvest team, as long as there wasn’t a reasonable accommodation that could allow the worker to meet the requirements.
In this section, we examined what tools employers like Farmer Zed might be required to provide to their disabled employees and what performance standards they can set for their employees. Below you will find guidelines for responding to tool-related accommodation requests from employees and potential new hires.
Imagine that a disabled employee comes to you requesting tools to help them at work. Here are three key guidelines for navigating your response:
Farmer Keshon’s employee Janelle was recently diagnosed with major depressive disorder and was having trouble with sleep and morning fatigue. As an accommodation, she requested that her work hours be changed from 7-3 to 8-4. She wasn’t asking for a reduction in hours, just a change in start time. In Accommodation Strategies for Farm and Ranch Employers, Farmer Keshon decided this request was reasonable and granted it.
However, on other farms, this accommodation may not be reasonable. Often, farm work must begin early in the day. The Farm Manager is usually in charge of managing and doling out tasks. If a farm could demonstrate that starting work at 7 am sharp to give the crew instructions was an essential function of the Farm Manager job, then the accommodation would not have to be granted.
But, we still need the interactive process. Other breaks or rest periods during the workday may meet Janelle’s needs. Perhaps it works for Janelle to take two rest periods in the morning and afternoon and then extend her closing time to make up for the rest periods.
Modified work schedules are a common accommodation request. And, where possible, employers should consider schedule changes as reasonable accommodations. Like Janelle, these modifications could include a later start time. For other employees, the request may be part-time work, time off for doctor’s appointments and treatment, or extra rest periods.
For example, a farm employee with a mental disability who needs to take time off for sessions with their psychiatrist and therapist should be accommodated. An employee who needs two hours off for these sessions twice a week could be permitted longer lunch breaks to accommodate these appointments. The employee could then make up the time by working later on those days. Or, the employer could simply accept fewer hours per week.
Unless this modification causes an undue hardship, this would be a reasonable accommodation and must be granted.
Similar to modified work schedules, some disabled employees may ask for leave due to their disability. Employers are not required to provide additional paid leave as an accommodation but are required to consider the use of accrued leave, advanced leave, or unpaid leave as accommodations.
It can be difficult to reserve farm jobs for employees who cannot work for some time, and it can be difficult to determine when this inconvenience becomes an undue hardship on the business. It is clear, however, that a company’s leave policy does not determine how much leave is reasonable as an accommodation. In one case, an employee who had exhausted their year-long leave allowed by company policy was found to be reasonable in requesting an additional two months of leave. However in another case, the court held that extended leave is never a reasonable accommodation because the employee isn’t working and is, therefore, unable to perform the essential functions of the job. Leave is usually viewed favorably as a solution, though.
On the whole, courts consider a few factors when determining if a leave request is reasonable, including:
An employee who requests an undefined amount of leave to “recover” from a mental or physical disability may be denied that request. However, an employee who fairly believes they can return to work after a definite and limited leave period is more likely to have their accommodation deemed reasonable. Whether or not the leave would be effective, meaning allowing an employee to return to work after the leave, often turns on doctor’s opinions and common sense assessments of the injury or disability. Regarding the reasonableness of the length of leave, courts have not provided a clear rule about how long is too long. This determination depends on each business’s circumstances. If the position has been adequately filled with temporary workers and the cost of keeping the job available for the disabled employee isn’t an undue burden, then the leave could be extended for a long period. Disabled employees should be allowed to take all available paid leave to accommodate their disability.
Given the seasonal nature of farm businesses, many farms aren’t able to offer their employees paid leave. They also may not be able to hold positions for long periods while employees recover or receive treatment. Suppose Janelle had asked Farmer Keshon for a month off work to rest, recover, and receive treatment for her major depressive disorder. Unless it was during an off-season on a farm that doesn’t produce much during that time, it would be highly unlikely that Farmer Keshon could grant this accommodation, even if the time off is unpaid. As the farm manager, Janelle is likely not easily replaceable with temporary labor. Operating the farm without a farm manager for a month may create an undue hardship on Farmer Keshon’s business. Of course, Farmer Keshon should consider his options. Could he allow someone to function temporarily as a farm manager? Could he step into the role for a month? Are there other, less drastic accommodations that would be effective and save Janelle’s job? In the end, Farmer Keshon needs to assess the situation and document the factors behind his decision.
All this talk about depression might raise some questions for farm business owners who suspect many of their employees struggle with some form of mental illness from time to time. When do mental health issues rise to the level of protected disabilities? For any disability (physical or mental) to get ADA protection it has to meet the statute’s definition of disability. As Accommodation Strategies for Farm and Ranch Employers explains, that definition, in part, is a condition that substantially limits a major life activity, like walking, talking, seeing, hearing, learning, or operation of a major bodily function. This definition can include a large swath of mental disabilities.
Whether a condition meets this definition depends on the particular circumstances of the employee, their diagnosis, and how it impacts their life. However, some mental health conditions are specifically excluded from ADA protection. Furthermore, there are limits to protections for people suffering from substance abuse disorders. We will briefly touch on those limits below.
Suppose a farm business owner is having difficulty with the behavior of an employee who is aggressive and unpleasant with other employees. The employee claims the behavior issues are a result of intermittent explosive disorder (IED) and an anxiety disorder. The farm owner is suddenly concerned about her ability to discipline and potentially fire this disruptive employee. Does the ADA protect the worker?
There are only a few mental illnesses that are explicitly excluded from ADA coverage. Those include various sexual behavior disorders, compulsive gambling, kleptomania, pyromania, and psychoactive substance abuse disorders resulting from the current use of illegal drugs. As far as the farm owner is aware, this employee is not suffering from any of these conditions. As long as this worker’s condition substantially limits a major life activity, as it may, then he has a disability that the ADA protects. However, there are other issues for the employer to consider.
For example, if any employee would be disciplined for the type of behavior in question, then the employee with a disability can also be disciplined for that behavior. These standards or policies need to be job-related and have a business necessity. For example, a standard such as, “Employees may not raise their voice against fellow employees,” may fail that test because keeping a quiet working environment generally isn’t necessary for farm work. However, something along the lines of, “Employees may not engage in threatening or hostile behavior which includes using language that is demeaning, insulting, or offensive to the average person” limits the uncomfortable work environment that businesses have an interest in protecting. Employers with clear workplace conduct policies that are well thought out will be in the best position to handle behavioral problems without causing discrimination.
If the behavior becomes threatening or violent, employers can be assured that the ADA does not require an employer to retain a potentially violent employee. Any threats made to other employees would disqualify an employee from ADA protection. Recall from Farmer Raina’s story that an employee who directly threatens themselves or other employees can be denied or terminated from employment without violating the ADA. Employers have a responsibility to create safe working environments, and no single employee’s disability will overshadow that responsibility.
Substance abuse disorders are often the culprit for many workplace incidents. These conditions, too, can be considered disabilities. What if the farm owner suspected illegal drug use was causing this employee’s irritability and outbursts? Whereas the ADA may require reasonable accommodations for a rehabilitated person with a substance abuse disorder, it would not require accommodations for any employee who is currently using illegal drugs. The farmer suspecting drug use could request testing for current illegal drug use, and any employee can be fired or denied employment based on current illegal drug use.
Furthermore, employees who suffer from substance abuse disorders, like alcoholism, must still meet the same qualification and performance standards that are applied to other employees. Not showing up for work, being late, performing poorly, or causing accidents are behaviors that don’t need to be accepted nor accommodated, no matter their cause.
There is a final consideration about substance abuse disorders. People with a history of substance abuse can only be denied a job or fired due to a concern they will relapse if the employer can demonstrate that there is a high probability they will relapse and that the relapse would pose a danger to themselves or other employees. The direct threat would have to be highly probable and risk substantial harm. An employer in this situation would need to consider reasonable accommodations to reduce or eliminate that threat, like periodic drug or alcohol tests or providing increased supervision.
In this section, we considered when modified farm work schedules or leave are reasonable accommodations. We also considered the limits of mental health disability protection for farm employees. Below you will find guidelines for responding to reduced work hour requests and employee mental health conditions.
Imagine that a disabled employee comes to you requesting reduced work hours. Here are key guidelines for navigating your response:
What about responding to behavior related to mental health disabilities?
Keep in mind that:
Now that you’ve learned the best practices for how to assess whether a disability accommodation is reasonable or unreasonable for a farm business, it’s time to reflect on what’s reasonable for your farm.
Remember: Employers must provide reasonable accommodations to disabled employees, unless it creates an undue hardship for the business. Employees must be able to perform essential job functions, with or without accommodations.
Reflect on the following questions to help you prepare to engage in the interactive process with disabled employees to find appropriate solutions:
Now you’re better prepared to respond to and engage with an employee’s request for disability accommodation. While this process can be uncomfortable at times, taking the time to discern what’s reasonable for each situation will support your team while boosting your legal resilience.
This material is based upon work supported by USDA/NIFA under Award Number 2023-70027-40444.
© Farm Commons 2014 – 2024
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use