In EEOC v. A&A Appliance, Inc., a Colorado federal court not only dismissed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) disability discrimination claims against an employer, but also ruled that the EEOC’s case was so lacking in factual support that the employer may recover its attorneys’ fees. While fee awards against the EEOC remain relatively uncommon, the decision highlights several best practices that employers should incorporate into their leave management and accommodation processes, so that they too can prevail in a EEOC (or a State-level agency) discrimination, accommodation, harassment or retaliation case.
What Happened?
In the A&A Appliance case, an employee requested and received a period of protected leave during the COVID-19 pandemic. After her approved leave expired, the employer and employee continued communicating regarding a possible extension. But when the employee did not return to work and the employer determined there was insufficient information demonstrating a qualifying disability requiring accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the employer terminated the employee’s employment.
The employee later filed a charge with the EEOC alleging disability discrimination and retaliation. After investigating the claim, the EEOC filed suit against the employer.
The court ultimately dismissed all of the EEOC’s claims, finding that the agency could not establish a critical element of its case: that the employer had sufficient knowledge of a qualifying disability that would trigger ADA accommodation obligations.
Why This Matters for Employers
The decision reinforces an important principle that many employers misunderstand: An employee’s medical condition is not automatically a disability under the ADA. Likewise, an employer’s awareness that an employee has a medical condition does not automatically mean the employer has notice of a legally protected disability requiring accommodation. Employers must evaluate accommodation requests and seek information out. A statement or representation, even by a doctor, might not be enough. Follow-up is permitted, and required in many instances, before an employer can make a decision regarding requested accommodations.
Key Compliance Lessons
The employer prevailed in part because it maintained records of communications regarding leave approvals, leave expiration dates, extension requests, and return-to-work expectations. Employers should maintain written documentation whenever discussing, investigating or processing medically-necessitated leave from work or accommodations.
The court noted that the employer followed a consistent process regarding leave administration and extensions. Inconsistent treatment of employees often creates legal risk, even when an employer’s intentions are good.
Clear communication and documented follow-up efforts remain critical.
One notable aspect of the decision is that the employer repeatedly identified factual and legal weaknesses in the EEOC’s claims throughout the litigation. The court specifically noted that the employer consistently raised these issues, which helped support its request for attorneys’ fees.
Bottom Line for Forework Readers
Employee leave situations cannot be put on auto pilot and often require months-long delicate handling between Human Resources and employment counsel well versed in accommodation and leave issues. This case serves as a reminder that employers who maintain strong documentation, administer leave consistently, and carefully evaluate accommodation requests are in a far stronger position when employment disputes arise.
As a reminder, Forework provides employers with 10 hours of employment attorney support each month, as well as leave of absence management, to ensure employers handle these, potentially expensive litigation-sensitive, cases and reduce employers’ exposure to lawsuits.