Clarifying Redundancy and Accommodation under the ADA:
Butler v. Econ-O-Check Corporation

Introduction

In Butler v. Econ-O-Check Corporation, the Eleventh Circuit addressed whether an employer’s decision to eliminate an employee’s position—and reassign her duties to non-disabled colleagues—could constitute legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Plaintiff Rebecca Butler, who suffers from Crohn’s disease and required periodic immunosuppressive treatments, worked as a call-center director and handled sensitive human-resources tasks for Econ-O-Check. After requesting to continue working remotely until receiving a COVID-19 vaccine, the company restructured, terminated her position in early 2021, and reassigned her responsibilities. Butler sued under the ADA for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Econ-O-Check, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

Background and Key Issues

• Plaintiff: Rebecca Butler, diagnosed with Crohn’s disease in 1985, treated with regular Remicade infusions that suppress her immune system.
• Defendant: Econ-O-Check Corporation, which operates a call center for financial institutions.
• Employment Role: Butler served as customer-service and call-center director from 2015 to January 2021, overseeing operations, strategy, team management, vendor relations, and HR tasks involving confidential employee data.
• Pandemic Response: In March 2020, Butler and three other “high-risk” employees worked remotely indefinitely; other employees began returning to the office in summer 2020.
• Performance Concerns: Late-2020 incidents—an unresolved client complaint and a call-center outage not promptly reported—eroded the supervisor’s trust.
• Termination: On January 5, 2021, Butler was informed her position was eliminated due to redundancy: a call-center supervisor and a newly rehired HR manager would absorb her duties.
• Legal Claims: “Actual” and “regarded-as” disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation under the ADA.

Summary of the Judgment

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Econ-O-Check, holding that:

• No Pretext: Econ-O-Check offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons (redundancy of Butler’s role). Butler failed to demonstrate that these reasons were mere pretext for discrimination or retaliation.
• Convincing Mosaic Absent: Butler’s comparator evidence was insufficient—her supervisor was unaware of the alleged misconduct by other employees—and deviation from a progressive discipline policy was permitted by its own terms.
• Reasonable Accommodation: Econ-O-Check did not violate the ADA by allowing Butler to continue working remotely on the same terms as other high-risk employees; there was no duty to extend a new accommodation or to tie continued employment to an in-office return.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973): Established the burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims.
• EEOC v. STME, LLC (11th Cir. 2019): Defined “disability” under the ADA to include actual disabilities and perceived impairments.
• Frazier-White v. Gee (11th Cir. 2016) & Akridge v. Alfa Insurance Cos. (11th Cir. 2024): Standards for de novo review of summary judgment.
• Tynes v. Florida Dept. of Juvenile Justice (11th Cir. 2023): Described the “convincing mosaic” approach to circumstantial evidence of discrimination.
• Patterson v. Georgia-Pacific, LLC (11th Cir. 2022): Clarified that plaintiffs must identify inconsistencies or implausibilities to rebut an employer’s legitimate reasons as pretextual.
• Schaaf v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. (11th Cir. 2010): Upheld employer discretion to deviate from progressive discipline when the policy reserves such flexibility.
• Jefferson v. Sewon America, Inc. (11th Cir. 2018): Temporal proximity alone cannot prove pretext without additional evidence.
• D’Onofrio v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (11th Cir. 2020): Outlined elements of an ADA failure-to-accommodate claim.

Legal Reasoning

1. McDonnell Douglas Burden-Shifting:
   • Plaintiff’s Prima Facie Case: Assumed for analysis that Butler met her initial burden (disability, qualification, adverse action).
   • Employer’s Legitimate Reasons: Econ-O-Check showed Butler’s call-center and HR duties were absorbed by other employees, making her position redundant.
   • Pretext Inquiry: Butler had to demonstrate real weaknesses or contradictions in that explanation:
   • Reassignment to non-disabled colleagues does not, by itself, prove pretext when redundancy is logical.
   • No shifting explanations—Econ-O-Check consistently cited redundancy and documented performance concerns.
   • “Suspicious timing” failed as all high-risk employees enjoyed the same remote-work accommodation before and after Butler’s termination.
2. Convincing Mosaic Standard: Although Butler pointed to two employees who allegedly engaged in similar misconduct without penalty, she offered no evidence her supervisor knew of their actions. Without knowledge by the decisionmaker, comparator evidence cannot support an inference of discrimination. Moreover, the written discipline policy expressly permitted skipping steps, so no inference arises from lack of progressive warnings.
3. Failure to Accommodate: Butler’s request to remain remote until vaccinated imposed no new burden: Econ-O-Check had already allowed her—and other high-risk employees—to work from home. The ADA does not obligate an employer to extend a preferred or novel accommodation beyond what it uniformly granted to similarly situated staff.

Potential Impact

• Confirms that redundancy—when duties are legitimately reassigned—can defeat ADA discrimination claims.
• Emphasizes that comparator evidence only supports a discrimination inference if the decisionmaker knew of the comparator’s conduct.
• Validates employer discretion to depart from progressive discipline procedures if the policy reserves such flexibility.
• Limits the scope of remote-work accommodations under the ADA, particularly in pandemic or emergency contexts where uniform policies apply.
• Reinforces the rigorous application of the McDonnell Douglas framework and the standards for proving pretext and disparate treatment.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Prima Facie Case: The employee’s initial showing that she is disabled, qualified, and suffered an adverse action because of her disability or protected activity.
• McDonnell Douglas Framework: A three-step process: (1) plaintiff’s prima facie case; (2) employer’s legitimate non-discriminatory reason; (3) plaintiff’s proof of pretext.
• Pretext: Evidence that the employer’s stated reason is not believable, shown by contradictions or implausible explanations.
• Convincing Mosaic: Circumstantial evidence—timing, statements, comparators—that together may allow a reasonable juror to infer discrimination.
• Reasonable Accommodation: Adjustments enabling a qualified individual with a disability to perform essential job functions; employers need not provide the employee’s preferred solution or exceed accommodations granted to similarly situated colleagues.

Conclusion

Butler v. Econ-O-Check reaffirms that job elimination for legitimate business reasons—such as redundancy—and uniform remote-work policies do not constitute ADA violations. The decision underscores the necessity of linking comparator evidence to the decisionmaker, clarifies the limits of progressive discipline deviations, and delineates the scope of reasonable accommodations in extraordinary circumstances. Employers should meticulously document each step of their decision-making processes, and employees should precisely define accommodation requests to navigate the ADA’s complex pretext and accommodation analyses.