Ninth Circuit Discusses Interactive Process

On November 10, 2003 , the Ninth Circuit issued a decision that sheds light on the importance of the interactive process under the ADA.  Allen v. Pacific Bell, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 22960 (9^th Cir. Cal.).  In that case, the employee wanted to be accommodated in his current position.  His employer, Pacific Bell, concluded that he could not work in that job because his medical restrictions limited him to doing only sedentary work.  Pacific Bell advised him that it would reconsider its position if he could provide medical certification indicating that his condition was improving.  Meanwhile, Pacific Bell continued to review whether there were alternative available jobs that the employee could do.  The employee did not present medical certification to support his interest in being accommodated in his present job.  Therefore, the Ninth Circuit concluded that Pacific Bell had no duty to continue to evaluate whether he could be accommodated in that job.  Under an agreement between Pacific Bell and the employee's union, an employee had to take certain skills tests to assist with transfers to positions that they could physically perform.  In this case, the employee failed to show up to take the required test.  Under the agreement with the union, this disqualified him from being considered for a transfer.  As a result, Pacific Bell had no duty to continue to review potential transfers as a possible accommodation.  Based on all these facts, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the employee's claim.  Pacific Bell did what it was supposed to do:  It initiated the interactive process and made clear to the employee what choices were available to him.  It was the employee who failed to fulfill his end of the interactive process.  This proved fatal to his claim.