Introduction

The case of Thomas DAVIS v. MICROSOFT CORPoration addressed critical issues surrounding disability discrimination under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD). Davis, suffering from a hepatitis C infection, alleged that Microsoft failed to reasonably accommodate his disability by altering his job duties to fit a restricted work schedule. The central questions revolved around whether the essential functions of his position as a systems engineer inherently required long and unpredictable work hours, beyond the standard 40-hour workweek, and whether Microsoft's efforts to reassign Davis to a different role within the company constituted sufficient accommodation.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Washington ultimately affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision that Davis failed to demonstrate he could perform the essential functions of his current role within a limited work schedule. However, the Court upheld that Microsoft's attempts to accommodate by reassigning Davis to another position were adequate. Due to the general verdict rendered by the jury, which may have solely rested on the invalidated first theory (failure to accommodate in the current job), the Court mandated a remand for a new trial focusing solely on the second theory (accommodation by reassignment).

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced both Washington state and federal precedents to shape its analysis of what constitutes "essential functions" under disability discrimination laws. Key cases and statutes include:

• HILL v. BCTI INCOME FUND-I: Established the prima facie case elements for failure to reasonably accommodate a disability.
• GOODMAN v. BOEING CO.: Defined reasonable accommodation as an interactive process between employer and employee.
• Dean v. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle: Highlighted the mutual duties of both employer and employee in the accommodation process.
• Thomson v. Virginia Mason Hosp. and FAHN v. COWLITZ COUNTY: Discussed the notion of "substantial evidence" and essential functions in employment discrimination cases.
• Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and EEOC Regulations: Provided federal definitions and guidance on interpreting essential job functions.

Legal Reasoning

The Court delved into the interpretation of "essential functions," aligning with the ADA's definition as the fundamental duties of a position, not marginal tasks. The majority concluded that the systems engineer role at Microsoft inherently required flexibility, frequent travel, and extended hours, which constituted essential functions that Davis could not perform under his medical restrictions. This determination was based on:

• The nature of the work involving large, global customers requiring on-site demonstrations and urgent support.
• Testimonies indicating that systems engineers consistently worked well beyond a 40-hour week, often reaching 60-80 hours.
• The temporary accommodation's limited scope, which Davis managed only with a significantly reduced workload.

The court emphasized that altering essential functions to accommodate an employee would undermine the very premise of the WLAD, which protects against discrimination but does not compel employers to restructure fundamental job roles.

Impact

This decision reinforces the legal boundaries within which employers must operate when accommodating disabled employees. It clarifies that not all job modifications are obligatory, especially when such changes would alter the essential nature of the role. Future cases will likely reference this judgment to determine the balance between reasonable accommodation and the preservation of essential job functions. Additionally, it underscores the necessity for employers to engage in an interactive process with employees to identify feasible accommodations without overstepping into redefining job roles.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Essential Functions

Essential functions are the core duties that are fundamental to a specific job role. These duties are not optional or ancillary but are critical to the position's existence. For instance, a systems engineer's role at Microsoft involves creating presentations, traveling for on-site demonstrations, and providing urgent customer support—all of which are deemed essential functions.

Reasonable Accommodation

Reasonable accommodation refers to adjustments or modifications provided by an employer to enable individuals with disabilities to perform their job duties effectively. This could include altered work schedules, modified equipment, or reassignment to a different role within the organization. However, such accommodations must not fundamentally alter the nature of the job.

Judgment as a Matter of Law (CR 50(a))

A motion for judgment as a matter of law is a request made to the court, typically after the opposing party has presented their case, arguing that no reasonable jury could find in favor of the opposing party based on the evidence presented. In this case, Microsoft filed such a motion, contending that Davis failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claims.

Conclusion

The DAVIS v. MICROSOFT CORPoration decision serves as a pivotal reference in understanding the delineation of essential job functions within the realm of disability accommodation. By affirming that mandatory long and unpredictable work hours can constitute essential functions—thereby limiting the scope for reasonable accommodation—the court provided a clear framework for both employers and employees. Employers must recognize the boundaries of reasonable accommodation without compromising the core responsibilities of a position, while employees must engage proactively in the accommodation process to align their abilities with job requirements.