What does the Eleventh Circuit ruling in Beasley v. O’Reilly Auto Parts mean for Plaintiffs ADA Failure-to-Accommodate Cases

The Eleventh Circuit recently ruled that an adverse employment action is necessary to establish a failure-to-accommodate claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This decision came from the case Beasley v. O'Reilly Auto Parts, where the court found that simply failing to provide a reasonable accommodation does not by itself violate the ADA unless it results in an adverse employment action for the employee. This adverse action must impact the employee's hiring, advancement, discharge, compensation, or other terms and conditions of employment​.

This ruling diverges from the approach of other circuits. For instance, the Tenth Circuit, in Exby-Stolley v. Board of County Commissioners, held that an adverse employment action is not required to establish a failure-to-accommodate claim, creating a clear circuit split. The Tenth Circuit argued that the ADA’s text and its broad remedial purpose do not support an adverse employment action requirement​​.

The implications of the Eleventh Circuit's decision means that in states under its jurisdiction (Alabama, Georgia, and Florida), employees must meet a higher burden of proof in failure-to-accommodate claims, which could limit the success of such claims compared to other jurisdictions where no adverse action is required​. This split in judicial interpretation may eventually prompt the Supreme Court to address and resolve this discrepancy in ADA enforcement across different circuits.

Contact The Justice Law Firm, LLC today for a FREE consultation.