## Facts

- Carolyn Humphrey worked as a medical transcriptionist for Memorial Hospitals Association (MHA) from 1986 until her 1995 termination; her transcription quality and productivity were consistently excellent.
- Beginning around 1989, Humphrey developed severe lateness and absences tied to obsessive rituals and symptoms later diagnosed as obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).
- MHA issued progressive discipline for attendance, including a Level I warning (June 1994) and a Level III warning (December 1994), and directed her to counseling through an employee assistance program.
- A psychiatrist, paid by MHA, diagnosed OCD and stated it directly contributed to Humphrey’s lateness, was treatable, and might require a leave of absence.
- MHA provided a flexible start-time arrangement allowing Humphrey to work at any time within a 24-hour period on scheduled days if she met her daily quota, but her attendance problems continued.
- Humphrey requested to work from home, an option MHA provided to other transcriptionists; MHA denied the request because she was under disciplinary action and thus ineligible under its policy.
- MHA terminated Humphrey for continued attendance problems; after termination, she sought a leave of absence in lieu of termination, and MHA refused, stating she had already had her chance at accommodation.
- Humphrey sued under the ADA and California’s FEHA for failure to reasonably accommodate and discriminatory termination; the district court granted summary judgment to MHA, and Humphrey appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Humphrey presented a triable issue that MHA failed to provide reasonable accommodation and engage in the required interactive process under the ADA and FEHA.
2. Whether Humphrey presented a triable issue that MHA terminated her because of her disability where the cited misconduct (attendance violations) was caused by OCD.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded.
- The court held there were genuine disputes of material fact as to whether MHA satisfied its accommodation obligations and whether Humphrey was discharged because of her disability.
- The court ruled that an employer’s accommodation duty is ongoing and is not discharged by a single attempt that proves ineffective.

## Legal Principles

- Once an employer knows of an employee’s disability and resulting limitations, the employer has an affirmative duty to engage in an interactive process and consider reasonable accommodations.
- The duty to reasonably accommodate is continuing; if an accommodation does not resolve the work problem, the employer may need to consider alternative accommodations.
- Telecommuting can be a reasonable accommodation where it is feasible for the position and is supported by the employee’s circumstances and medical information; a categorical denial based solely on a disciplinary policy may be unreasonable.
- A leave of absence may be a reasonable accommodation; prior reluctance by an employee does not necessarily relieve an employer of considering leave later when circumstances show it may be needed and effective.
- Conduct resulting from a disability is treated as part of the disability; termination for disability-caused conduct can support a claim that the discharge was “because of” the disability.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that a jury could find MHA failed to reasonably accommodate Humphrey’s OCD by not adequately considering alternatives such as work-from-home or leave after an initial accommodation proved ineffective, and that terminating her for disability-related attendance problems could constitute discrimination under the ADA and FEHA.


Humphrey v. Mem'l Hosps. Ass'n, 239 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2001)