1. Procedure. Who are the parties? Who brought the action? In what court did the case originate? Who won at the trial-court level? What is the appellate history of the case?

2. Facts. What are the relevant facts as recited by this court? Are there any facts that you would like to know but that are not revealed in the opinion?

3. Issues. What are the precise issues being litigated, as stated by the court? Do you agree with the way the court has framed those issues?

4. Holding. What is the court's precise holding (decision)? What is its rationale for that decision? Do you agree with that rationale?

5. Implications. What does the case mean for healthcare today? What were its implications when the decision was announced? How should healthcare administrators prepare to deal with these implications? What would be different today if the case had been decided differently?

Apa references

Chapter 4: Human Resources Law 185 een The Court Decides IIII t [has] at oth to Humphrey v. Memorial Hospitals Association IS. 239 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2001) d that trans- Reinhardt, Circuit Judge e or an Carolyn Humphrey brought suit against her arrangement in which she could begin work en." former employer, Memorial Hospitals Asso- any time within a 24-hour period on days ed ciation (MHA), under the Americans with on which she was scheduled to work. She itle Disabilities Act (ADA) and its California coun- accepted this offer but continued to miss li- terpart, the Fair Employment and Housing Act work, at which point she requested to be Title (FEHA) for failure to reasonably accommodate allowed to work at home-an arrangement hat her disability and wrongful termination. We that MHA had previously granted to certain reverse the district court's grant of summary medical transcriptionists. This request was ex, judgment in favor of MHA. 'summarily denied" because of the hospi- tal's policy that employees who are involved 1. BACKGROUND in disciplinary actions are not eligible to work [Humphrey worked for MHA as a medical from home. After a few more absences, Hum- transcriptionist from 1986 until her termi- phrey was terminated as a result of her "his- nation in 1995. Her performance was con- tory of tardiness and absenteeism." sistently rated as excellent, exceeding the The trial court granted MHA's motion for hospital's standards for speed, accuracy, and summary judgment on the theory that the productivity. However, in 1989, she began to hospital had satisfied its duty to make rea- experience problems getting to work on time, sonable accommodation for her disability.] or at all, because of certain obsessive rituals related to grooming and dressing that some- II. DISCUSSION times took three hours or more. Some days Humphrey contends that MHA violated the when she realized she was going to be late, ADA and the FEHA by failing to reasonably she would panic and become embarrassed, accommodate her disability and by terminat- making it even harder to leave her house. ing her because of that disability. The ADA As a result of her difficulties with tardiness provides that "no covered entity shall dis- and absenteeism, MHA disciplined Humphrey criminate against a qualified individual with a with progressive warnings and counseling, disability because of the disability. . . ." Title sent her to their employee assistance pro- of the ADA insures [sic] full opportunities gram, and paid for psychological evaluations. for people with disabilities in the workplace The opinion of the psychiatric profession- by requiring reasonable accommodation of als was that obsessive-compulsive disorder employees' disabilities by their employers. (OCD) was the likely cause of her attendance Under the ADA, the term "discriminate" is problems. defined as including "not making reasonable Humphrey was offered an accommo- accommodations to the known physical or dation in the form of a flexible start time mental limitations of an otherwise qualified (continued)186 The Law of Healthcare Administration IIII (continued from previous page) individual with a disability who is an appli- individual is "significantly restricted as to the condition, manner, or duration under which with the purposes of the cant or employee, unless such covered entity an individual can perform a major life activ- employer to deny an oth can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the ity as compared to the condition, mann accommodation because operation of the business of such covered or duration under which the average person action taken due to the entity." To prevail on a claim of unlawful in the general population can perform that be accommodated. Thus same major life activity." [Quoting the ADA plinary record does not discharge under the ADA, the plaintiff must establish that he is a qualified individual regulations.] An individual who has a physi- priate basis for denying accommodation. with a disability and that the employer ter- cal or mental impairment that causes him to take inordinately more time than others to . . . A reasonable jury minated him because of his disability. The ADA defines a "qualified individual with a complete a major life activity is substantially if Humphrey was relieve disability" as "an individual with a disability limited as to that activity under the ADA. ing to leave the house transcriptionist duties who, with or without reasonable accommoda- There is no dispute on the record before us fied" under the ADA. tion, can perform the essential functions of that Humphrey falls within that category. Accordingly, we hold the employment position that such individual Accordingly, in determining whether Hum- entitled to summary ju holds or desires." A "disability" is "a physical phrey is disabled for purposes of the ADA, whether Humphrey is a or mental impairment that substantially lim- the question is not whether she is substan- its one or more of the major life activities of tially limited in her ability to care for herself, with a disability" for pu such individual." but whether she had OCD, and, if so, whether The facts are undisputed with regard her OCD was the cause of her limitation. Discussion Question to Humphrey's ability to care for herself. . . . Humphrey is a "qualified individual" The testimony of Humphrey and . . . her under the ADA so long as she is able to per- 1. Was the "work from mental health provider, reflects that it took form the essential functions of her job "with 2. How much tardines Humphrey significantly more time than the or without reasonable accommodation." disciplinary action average person to accomplish the basic Either of two potential reasonable accom- 3. What would you h tasks of washing and dressing. According modations might have made it possible for to Humphrey, the process of washing and Humphrey to perform the essential functions brushing her hair alone could take several of her job: granting her a leave of absence hours, and she at times would prepare for or allowing her to become a "home-based work from eight o'clock in the morning until transcriptionist." five or six o'clock in the evening. [O]n one . . . [The ADA does not require an OCD screening test, she was rated as tak- employee to show that a leave of absence ing three times as long as most people to is certain or even likely to be successful to The Co shower, wash her hands, dress, and handle or cook food. MHA argues that even if Hum- prove that it is a reasonable accommodation. phrey's ritualistic behaviors caused her to [In an earlier case] we noted that "as long take more time to complete basic activities as a reasonable accommodation available to National Labor than the average person, she is not dis- the employer could have plausibly enabled abled under the ADA because her OCD did a handicapped employee to adequately per- not prevent her from accomplishing those form his job, an employer is liable for failing activities. As the Supreme Court has noted, to attempt that accommodation." however, "the [ADA] addresses substantial . . . [Furthermore,] MHA denied Hum- Lakepointe Senior Ca limitations on major life activities, not utter phrey's application for a work-at-home posi- tion because of her disciplinary record, which ates a long-term care inabilities." . . . An impairment "substantially It employs licensed p limits" one's ability to carry out a major life consisted of Level I and I and Level Ill warnings for tardiness and absenteeism prior to her registered nurses, wl activity if, because of the impairment, the diagnosis of OCD. It would be inconsistent "charge nurses." The tions Board permitteintel CORE 15 Chapter 4: Human Resources Law 187 IIII with the purposes of the ADA to permit an [In the remainder of the opinion, the court employer to deny an otherwise reasonable held that MHA "had an affirmative duty under accommodation because of past disciplinary the ADA to explore further methods of accom- action taken due to the disability sought to modation before terminating Humphrey." be accommodated. Thus, Humphrey's disci- Moreover, "once an employer becomes plinary record does not constitute an appro- aware of the need for accommodation, that priate basis for denying her a work-at-home employer has a mandatory obligation under accommodation. the ADA to engage in an interactive process .. . A reasonable jury could conclude that with the employee to identify and implement if Humphrey was relieved of the stress of hav- appropriate reasonable accommodations." ing to leave the house, she could perform her According to the court, this is a continuing transcriptionist duties and thus was "quali- duty that is not exhausted by one effort. fied" under the ADA. Thus, "MHA was under a continuing duty to Accordingly, we hold that MHA is not offer a reasonable accommodation," and it entitled to summary judgment on the issue of violated the ADA's reasonable accommoda- whether Humphrey is a "qualified individual tion requirement by failing to do so.] with a disability" for purposes of the ADA. Discussion Questions 1. Was the "work from home" option a realistic solution to Humphrey's attendance problem? 2. How much tardiness and absenteeism should an employer permit before taking disciplinary action if a disability is not known to be the cause? 3. What would you have done had you been in Humphrey's supervisor's position