Articles

Michigan Court of Appeals Clarifies Written Notice Requirement For Disability Accommodation

By Carol G. Schley, Esq.

In an issue of first impression, the Michigan Court of Appeals has clarified what information an employee is required to provide to an employer when requesting an accommodation under the Michigan Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act (“PWDCRA”).

In Bageris v. Brandon Township, 264 Mich. App. 156 (2004), Christopher Bageris, a part-time firefighter, applied for one of three full-time firefighter/paramedic positions with Brandon Township. The selection process included a three-part examination, including a practical, written and oral exam. Of the seven applicants, Bageris scored at the bottom and was not offered one of the three positions.

Bageris subsequently sued the Township, claiming that he was dyslexic, that he requested a “reader” for the written portion of the exam, that the Township failed to provide him with a reader, and therefore the Township failed to provide him with a reasonable accommodation for his disability under the PWDCRA. The Township disputed Bageris’ claim arguing, among other things, that Bageris never told the Township that the reason he needed a reader was because he was dyslexic and thus it had no obligation to provide him with the requested accommodation. The trial court held in favor of the Township and dismissed Bageris’ claims on summary disposition.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reviewed the issue of whether Bageris’ notice to the Township that he needed a reader for the firefighter/paramedic test was sufficient to trigger the Township’s duty to accommodate Bageris. First, the Court of Appeals reviewed the pertinent language of the PWDCRA, which provides that, “[a] person with a disability may allege a violation” against an employer “regarding failure to accommodate . . . only if the person with a disability notifies” an employer “in writing of the need for accommodation within 182 days after the date the person with a disability knew or reasonably should have known that an accommodation was needed.” Bageris at 163 (quoting MCL 37.1210(18)). Based upon this statutory language, the court held that Bageris’ request for a reader for the exam, without more, was insufficient to meet the written notice requirement of the statute. “Without at least a brief explanation of why an accommodation is needed, in terms of some physical or mental condition, the employer has no basis upon which to make an educated decision whether a ‘disability’ under the PWDCRA and thus any ‘duty to accommodate’ is at issue.” Bageris at 164. In reaching its decision, the court stated that its conclusion was similar to the notice requirement imposed on employees for hostile work environment sexual harassment claims under the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. “The analogy to the notice requirement of hostile environment/harassment cases is useful because both notice requirements have the same purpose: to make an employer aware of the situation so that, if necessary, remedial action can be taken.” Bageris at 165.

The Bageris case is important to both employees and employers, as it clarifies the obligations imposed on employees under the PWDCRA to provide adequate written notice of a disability and the need for an accommodation to their employers. The case is also helpful to employers, as it rejects imposing liability on employers under the PWDCRA in circumstances where an employee only provides vague notice of the need for an accommodation without adequately linking it to an alleged disability covered by the PWDCRA.