On May 11, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the plaintiff, not the employer, maintains the burden of proving the availability of a reasonable accommodation, even if the employer did not take advantage of the interactive process under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This landmark decision has significant implications for how ADA accommodation disputes are litigated and resolved. Understanding the details of this case and its impact on California employment law is crucial for both employers and employees navigating disability accommodation issues.

Key Points

• The Facts: Danny Snapp, a railroad worker with sleep apnea, went on disability leave in 1999. When his benefits were terminated in 2005, he sued his employer BNSF claiming they failed to provide reasonable accommodations under the ADA.
• The Legal Issue: The central question was who bears the burden of proof when an employer fails to engage in the required "interactive process" to identify potential accommodations for disabled employees.
• The Ruling: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that even when employers fail to participate in the interactive process, the employee (plaintiff) still bears the burden of proving that reasonable accommodations were actually available - not the employer.
• Why It Matters: This decision was significant because:
  • It resolved conflicting interpretations among federal courts
  • It prevented a major shift in ADA litigation that would have made it much harder for employers to defend accommodation cases
  • It clarified that employer failures in the interactive process affect summary judgment proceedings, but don't shift the ultimate burden of proof at trial

Table of Contents

• Background and Initial Disability
• Termination of Disability Benefits
• The Lawsuit and Legal Arguments
• Employer Duties and Burdens Under the ADA
• Ninth Circuit Decision
• How Kingsley Szamet Can Help Employees
• Frequently Asked Questions

Background and Initial Disability

Plaintiff, Danny Snapp worked for BNSF from 1971 through 1999. Due to tiredness and low energy, he went to a doctor in 1994. He was diagnosed with sleep apnea and had surgeries in 1996 and 1998 in unsuccessful attempts to correct his condition. In 1999, BNSF received a report from Snapp's physician. Snapp's supervisor told Snapp he did not believe Snapp could work in a safe manner. In 1999, Snapp took a "fitness for duty" evaluation, was determined to be totally disabled, and went on short-term disability leave. He applied for long-term disability benefits through CIGNA, the third-party administrator for BNSF's disability plan. In February 2000, BNSF's medical director told Snapp that CIGNA had approved Snapp's claim for disability benefits and that, should CIGNA later find him ineligible, he should contact BNSF's medical director to plan a "return to work."

Termination of Disability Benefits

Snapp began a period of long-term disability leave and received payments from CIGNA. In 2005, CIGNA requested a sleep study to verify Snapp's continuing disability. When Snapp arrived at a clinic for the study, the clinic asked him to sign a release accepting personal financial responsibility for the test. He refused and did not complete the study. In November 2005, CIGNA terminated Snapp's disability benefits citing an absence of evidence of continuing disability.

The Lawsuit and Legal Arguments

Snapp brought action against the United Transportation Union and his former employer, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF), alleging a failure to accommodate under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In the case Snapp v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co., a jury returned a defense verdict, and Snapp appealed. At trial, the parties disputed whether Snapp had requested an accommodation. In addition, the parties disagreed as to whether and how the jury instructions should address the "interactive process," i.e., the statutorily required collaborative effort for identifying an employee's abilities and an employer's possibly reasonable accommodations. 

Snapp argued the district court improperly rejected a proposed instruction that would have imposed liability on BNSF merely for failing to engage in the interactive process, regardless of the availability of a reasonable accommodation. Snapp also argued the district court improperly rejected a proposed jury instruction that would have described his overall burden of proof as a mere burden of production rather than as an ultimate burden of persuasion. Finally, Snapp argued the district court erred by refusing to treat statements by BNSF's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) corporate representative as binding admissions.

Snapp's appeal focused on three main points:

• Interactive Process: Snapp argued that the trial court should have instructed jurors that BNSF was liable simply for failing to engage in the interactive process to find a reasonable accommodation, regardless of whether such an accommodation actually existed.
• Burden of Proof: He contended the court's decision to require him to meet an "ultimate burden of persuasion" rather than a less stringent "burden of production."
• Binding Admissions: Snapp claimed the court made an error by not treating statements made by BNSF's corporate representative as binding admissions for the company.

Employer Duties and Burdens Under the ADA

The ADA treats the failure to provide a reasonable accommodation as an act of discrimination if:

1. the employee is a "qualified individual,"
2. the employer receives adequate notice, and
3. a reasonable accommodation is available that would not place an undue hardship on the operation of the employer's business. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A) ("[T]he term 'discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability' includes, not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, unless such covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business of such covered entity[.]"). 

The statute itself places on the employer the burden to demonstrate an undue hardship.

Ninth Circuit Decision

After losing on the motion and the trial, the plaintiff again appealed to the Ninth Circuit, this time questioning the jury instruction on the burden of proof. The Ninth Circuit found no error and affirmed the judgment of the district court. The plaintiff argued that under the Supreme Court's Barnett decision, employers that fail to take advantage of the interactive process to explore accommodations bear the burden of proof through trial as to whether there were any available measures which could have been taken. The court disagreed, limiting the impact from not engaging in the interactive process to the summary judgment stage, and not at the trial itself. Almost every federal court considering this question has concluded that at trial, the plaintiff must demonstrate the availability of a reasonable accommodation not provided by the employer.

California employers avoided an almost impossible situation as the court ruled against the plaintiff. Due to this decision, companies will not face an insurmountable legal hurdle when later called upon to defend their decisions, however, this case reinforces the importance of engaging with employees facing medical issues relating to work performance. This case also demonstrates the complexities in both state and federal laws when it comes to disability and sex-based discrimination.

How Kingsley Szamet Can Help Employees

If you are an employee facing disability discrimination or accommodation issues, Kingsley Szamet Employment Lawyers understands the challenges you're confronting in the workplace. With 29 years of experience defending employees and over $300 million secured in settlements and verdicts, our highly trusted Los Angeles Employment Attorneys can help you navigate the complex requirements of the ADA and California disability laws, ensuring you understand your rights and the obligations your employer has to provide reasonable accommodations. To discuss these laws, or a potential claim on your behalf, simply fill out the form on this page to schedule a free consultation.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the burden of proof for ADA claims?

Employees must first prove they are qualified individuals with a disability who can perform essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodation, then employers bear the burden to demonstrate that proposed accommodations would cause undue hardship.

Are ADA accommodations undue burden?

Not automatically, accommodations are only considered an undue burden if they impose significant difficulty or expense relative to the employer's size, resources, and business operations. Some reasonable accommodations, such as schedule adjustments or equipment modifications, may not qualify as undue burdens.

Who enforces ADA compliance?

The federal government enforces the ADA through the Department of Justice for public accommodations and government entities, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for workplace discrimination, while individuals can also bring lawsuits directly in federal court. California has its own disability discrimination laws enforced by the California Civil Rights Department, including FEHA and the Unruh Civil Rights Act, which provide protections that exist alongside federal ADA requirements.

What constitutes an undue burden under the ADA?

An undue burden means a required accommodation would create substantial difficulty or expense for the business, with courts evaluating each situation individually based on the modification's cost, the organization's size and financial capacity, total workforce, and whether implementing it would fundamentally disrupt business operations—smaller companies typically qualify for this defense more readily than large corporations.