Suffering from an extreme form of seasonal affective disorder (SAD) the plaintiff in this case sued her former employer claiming that they failed to move her back to a classroom with exterior windows to assist in alleviating her disorder and resulting symptoms, caused by lack of sunlight. Reversing the ruling of the District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that the defendant violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) U.S.C. § 12112, by failing to make accommodation for the plaintiffs disability.
This case is Renae Ekstrand vs. Somerset of Somerset
Renae Ekstrand (Ekstrand) taught successfully at Somerset Elementary School (Somerset) from 2000 to 2005. For the 2005-2006 school year, she requested a move from kindergarten to the first grade, and the school reassigned her to a first-grade classroom lacking exterior windows. Ekstrand told the principal that she had seasonal affective disorder, a form of depression, and would have difficulty functioning in a room with artificial light rather than natural light. She repeatedly requested an alternate room with natural light before the school year began. Throughout the first weeks of school, while teaching in the new classroom, her health declined. During this time, another first-grade teacher indicated that she was willing to switch rooms with Ekstrand; and an empty room was being held open for a possible additional third-grade section pending the school board’s approval.
Somerset worked with Ekstrand to remedy several of her issues regarding educational necessities (such as light bulbs, bulletin boards, etc.), but did not reassign her to a room with natural light despite Ekstrand’s repeated requests. Esktrand began experiencing fatigue, anxiety, hypervigilance, tearfulness, racing thoughts and trouble organizing tasks. She informed Somerset as her anxiety and depression worsened and she began experiencing new symptoms. By late September 2005 and through the time she began her medical leave on October 17, 2005, Ekstrand suffered from significant inability to concentrate, organize her thoughts, retrieve words, make decisions and focus on the needs of her students. She also experienced hypersomnia, racing thoughts, panic attacks, uncontrollable crying, inability to eat and thoughts of suicide.
On October 17, 2005, Ekstrand sought medical attention. Her doctors placed her on medication and advised her to take a leave of absence for the remainder of the semester. Twice during her leave she repeated her request for a room switch, once in an October 24th letter to the superintendent and again on November 14th when she met with the superintendent in person. On November 28, 2005, Ekstrand’s psychologist informed Somerset that natural light was the key to her improvement.
On February 28, 2008, Ekstrand sued Somerset in state court under the ADA, claiming failure to accommodate and unlawful discharge. Somerset removed the case to federal court, engaged in discovery with Ekstrand, and moved for summary judgment. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of Somerset. Ekstrand appealed the lower court’s judgment on both counts. The appeals court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment on the constructive-discharge claim, but reversed their decision on the failure to accommodate claim.
Extensive research in Northern Europe, Scandinavia, Australia, USA, Canada, Soviet Union and Japan has shown that an estimated 5 to 10 % of the population suffer from severe SAD symptoms. Another 25% or so have some tendency to winter depression due to lack of light and show some problematic symptoms even if they do not suffer from SAD in its most extreme form. Even though it’s a recognized diagnosis by healthcare providers, SAD, in this case, was overlooked as a debilitating disease requiring any accommodation.
The language of the ADA demonstrates that a reasonable accommodation is connected to what the employer knows about the employee’s precise limitations. An employee’s request for reasonable accommodation requires a great deal of communication between the employee and employer. The communication process becomes even more difficult in cases where necessary accommodation may not be as obvious to the employer, as it was in this case. Courts have consistently held that disabled employees must make their employers aware of any non-obvious, medically necessary accommodations with corroborating evidence, such as a doctor’s note, or a statement from a doctor, before an employer may be required, under the ADA’s reasonableness standard, to provide for any specific accommodation.
Before November 28, 2005, Somerset was never provided with evidence other than Ekstrand’s own remarks, that natural light was necessary to accommodate her, e.g., she never explained that her doctor had advised of the necessity of natural light. Nor was it obvious to Somerset prior to that point that natural light therapy was widely known as a necessary treatment for SAD. After Ektrand’s psychologist informed Somerset that natural light was the key to her improvement, they were obligated under the law to provide Ekstrand’s specifically requested, medically necessary, accommodation unless it would impose an undue hardship.
Concluding that little hardship would have been imposed in providing Ekstrand an available classroom, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit disagreed with the District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, that no reasonable jury could find in favor of Ekstrand’s failure-to-accommodate claim. They instead found that (1) she was a qualified individual with a disability; (2) Somerset was aware of her disability (after November 28, 2005); and (3) Somerset failed to reasonably accommodate that disability.
