Irma Leibas was a correctional officer at the Cook County Department of Corrections (DOC) in Illinois. The Cook County jail is one of the largest pre-trial detention facilities in the United States, where violence is commonplace. Prior to her employment, Leibas was diagnosed with several health issues, which flared up from time to time. To address her health issues, Leibas requested accommodations from the DOC, which put her on a modified duty assignment at the Visitor Information Center. When the DOC experienced severe budget cuts in 2018, resulting in a staffing shortage, the HR department sent a letter to each employee on modified duty, including Leibas, stating that they were unable to perform the essential functions of their position. The DOC requested a response either (1) providing medical documentation showing the employee no longer required an accommodation; (2) requesting a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); or (3) requesting a skills assessment to determine if the employee qualified for a vacant position at the DOC.
Leibas was on a medical leave of absence when she received the letter. She returned to work full duty in February 2019, but took disability leave the following month, and never returned to work. Her disability benefits then expired. In May 2019, Leibas provided an ADA accommodation form completed by her physician, explaining that she could perform her job’s essential functions if “allowed more frequent breaks and rest periods and bathroom breaks, up to three additional times per shift.” Her doctor also explained that Leibas could not stand for long periods of time without rest. An HR representative contacted Leibas about her request, but Leibas directed her to speak with her attorney instead. Leibas did not respond to further attempts to discuss the request. In November 2019, the DOC informed Leibas that no reasonable accommodations existed that would assist her in performing the essential functions of her position. Leibas sued the DOC for denying her reasonable accommodation under the ADA, and lost at summary judgment, with the Court concluding that Leibas was not a “qualified individual” for an accommodation under that law. Leibas appealed.
On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed. A “qualified individual” under the ADA is someone who “with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position.” Both the trial and appellate courts concluded that, even with an accommodation, Leibas would be unable to perform the essential functions of her job. The Court noted that given the unpredictable and violent nature of prisons, correctional officers “must always be prepared to respond as needed to unpredictable threats.” The DOC offered uncontroverted evidence that correctional officers must be able to stand unassisted for long periods of time, sometimes for the entirety of their eight-to-ten-hour shift. Because Leibas’s physician specifically noted that she was unable to stand for long periods of time without rest, Leibas failed to prove that the accommodation would render her able to perform her essential job duties.
The Court concluded that additional breaks would impose an undue hardship on the DOC. Leibas’s medical flare-ups were unpredictable, and she did not offer any evidence that if granted additional breaks, that she could take them in a way that would not interfere with the safety and orderly operation of the jail. Furthermore, the requested accommodation would exacerbate an existing staffing crisis. Evidence was presented that correctional officers are often unable to find coverage for a break. Even though Leibas claimed that she would never leave her post unattended, an “individual seeking a reasonable ADA accommodation cannot both insist that she requires an accommodation and maintain that she can forgo the same accommodation if necessary.” The Court concluded that “notwithstanding the fact that Leibas’s restrictions as described by her doctor and as presented to her employer might be reasonable in other contexts, they are not reasonable under the unique circumstances of the DOC.”
Leibas v. Dart, No. 23-1275, 2024 WL 3565265 (7th Cir., 2024).