When ADA and FLSA collide: Can overtime be an ‘essential job function’?

by Jared Bilski

When a job requires employees to log more than 40 hours per week on a regular basis, is it safe to say overtime is an “essential job function” of that position and deny an accommodation request that attempts to skirt the OT? 

That question was at the heart of Agee v. Mercedes-Benz. The plaintiff, Kimberly Agee, had a disability — breast cancer — that required a lifting restriction saying she wasn’t allowed to lift anything over 15 pounds. The company accommodated her lifting restriction by transferring her to work stations where she wouldn’t have to lift anything over 15 pounds.

Then, Agee became pregnant and presented the company with a doctor’s note from her OB-GYN stating that she couldn’t work more than 40 hours per week “due to her medical limitations.”

When the company asked for additional information about the scheduling restriction, she returned with another note that reiterated the need for the 40-hour limit and lifting restrictions because of the pregnancy and her medical issues. However, this note also made it known that the hour-restriction was “seemingly indefinite.”

And here’s where things got interesting. Once company learned about the indefinite nature of the accommodation, it let Agee know it couldn’t accommodate a permanent 40-hour workweek restriction because working mandatory overtime was an essential function of the job. Instead, it told Agee she was being placed on unpaid FMLA leave and that she need to get the doctor to lift the restrictions or it would eventually terminate her.

Click here for entire article.