How can one bad personnel decision result in an employer lighting $24 million on fire? A recent decision from the First Circuit Court of Appeals demonstrates how failure to seriously consider whether an employee’s medical condition could be accommodated resulted in a disastrous jury verdict.

In Menninger v. PPD Development L.P., the employer implemented work changes that required increased personal interactions with clients. The plaintiff approached human resources, and explained that she was concerned about her ability to perform these new tasks given her diagnosis of social anxiety disorder and panic attacks. She provided information from her physician requesting a series of accommodations, including excusing her from certain client-facing events.

In response to this request, the HR director and another HR employee exchanged emails proposing that the company ease the employee out of the organization. The employer agreed to two small changes to her work, but declined the other requests. The company also declined to respond to requests from the employee to explain why the other proposed accommodations could not be provided. In response, the employer offered to move the employee to a consulting position or accept a severance package. The employer then revised the employee’s production goals for that year and provided negative feedback with regard to the new work standards. She took medical leave and was terminated when she could not return by the end of that leave period.

Following trial, a jury awarded the plaintiff $24 million, including $10 million in punitive damages for violating the antidiscrimination requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The First Circuit affirmed the decision, rejecting the employer’s claims that the plaintiff’s allegations failed to state claims under the ADA. The court also rejected the employer’s contentions that the punitive damages award was improper in the absence of a finding of malice on the part of the company. The decision to move the employee out of the company following her request for accommodations justified the punitive damages verdict.

This case demonstrates the crucial need to treat all employee requests for accommodations with care and open-minded consideration. Regardless of the company’s frustrations with having to deal with such requests, the decision to terminate the employee before review of any undue hardship was completed, the refusal to provide a full explanation of the reasons for declining some of the requests, and changes to the employee’s production goals following the requests clearly influenced the jury’s verdict. Had the employer fully considered the accommodation requests and discussed them with the employee, it may have concluded in a legally defensible way that they would not have allowed her to perform her essential job functions or would have presented an undue hardship to the business. However, the decision to shortcut this process and decide to terminate her upon receiving the requests doomed its defense of the claims.

For more information, please contact me or your regular Parker Poe contact. Click here to subscribe to our latest alerts and insights.