A Fire Department discovered that one of its Fire Suppression Captains had a seizure disorder after he had a serious, off-duty vehicle collision. The Department ordered a fitness-for-duty evaluation. The evaluation restricted the Captain from working the continuous 24- to 48-hour shifts typical for his position, because the Captain needed 7 to 8 hours of sleep in every 24-hour period to reduce the risk of a seizure.
The Department promptly used an interactive process to assess whether the Captain could perform his essential duties with or without reasonable accommodation. After determining the Captain could not, the Department funded a vacant Administrative Captain position that accommodated the Captain’s work restrictions. This position carried the same rank, base salary, benefits, and promotional opportunities.
During the following months, the Captain repeatedly requested to return to his prior position. Yet, the Captain also provided deficient physicians’ notes, failed to sufficiently challenge the original fitness-for-duty determination, and outright refused to participate in the interactive process from time to time.
The Captain then sued the department, alleging disability discrimination and failure to engage in the interactive process. LCW demonstrated that the Department had acted lawfully at every stage: it immediately addressed the safety risk; relied on a valid medical evaluation; created reasonable accommodations that preserved the Captain’s pay and promotional opportunities; and consistently attempted to restart the interactive process even when the Captain refused. The Court agreed that the Captain’s change in position from a Suppression Captain to an Administrative Captain did not result in any adverse employment action and that the Department had completed the interactive process in good faith. By documenting the department’s proactive efforts and exposing the Captain’s failure to cooperate, LCW persuaded the court to grant the Department’s motion for summary judgment.