Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations in Rhode Island

Background

“The State Fair Employment Practices Act (FEPA) prohibits an employer from either discharging an employee or discriminating against an employee with respect to terms, conditions or privileges of employment based on that employee's sex or disability.” (See Decamp v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. (2005) 875 A.2d 13, 20.)

“Under the FHA, specifically 42 U.S.C. subsection 3604(f)(3)(B), unlawful discrimination includes a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling[.]” (See Andrade v. Westlo Mgmt. (2022) 276 A.3d 393, 401.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“The reasonable accommodation inquiry is highly fact-specific, requiring case-by-case determination.” (See id.)

“One of the ways the statute defines disability is any physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities, has a record of an impairment, or is regarded as having an impairment by any employer.” (See Decamp v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. (2005) 875 A.2d 13, 20.)

“A person whose rights under the provision of § 42-112-1 have been violated may commence a civil action for injunctive and other appropriate priate equitable relief, and for the award of compensatory and exemplary damages.” (See id.)

Prima Facie Case

In order to establish that a defendant failed to provide a reasonable accommodation a plaintiff must show that:

1. “the employee is a qualified individual with a disability within the meaning of the applicable statute;
2. the employee works (or worked) for an employer whom [the statutes] cover;
3. that the employer, despite knowing of the employee's physical or mental limitations, did not reasonably accommodate those limitations; and
4. the employer's failure to do so affected the terms, conditions, or privileges of the plaintiff's employment." 

(See id; Higgins v. New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc. (1999) 194 F.3d 252, 264.)

“Once a prima facie case has been established, the employer then must offer a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for discharging that employee and then the employee must convince the fact-finder that the reason offered by the employer is a pretext for discriminatory animus.” (See id.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“This Court reviews the granting of summary judgment de novo and applies the same standards as the motion justice.” (See Decamp v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. (2005) 875 A.2d 13, 20; Ritter v. Mantissa Investment Corp. (2005) 864 A.2d 601, 604.)

“Rule 56(c) provides that a motion for summary judgment should be granted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." (See id.)

“We will review this evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. That nonmoving party then must prove by competent evidence the existence of a disputed material issue of fact and cannot rest on allegations or denials in the pleadings or on conclusions or legal opinions.” (See id.) 

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “all persons within the state, regardless of race, color, religion, sex, disability, age, or country of ancestral origin, have, except as is otherwise provided or permitted by law, the same rights to make and enforce contracts, to inherit, purchase, to lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property.” (See Evans v. Rhode Island Department of Business Regulation, 01-1122 (2004), C.A. No. 01-1122, at *1 (R.I. Super. Aug. 20, 2004).)

It is also well settled that pursuant to Rhode Island General Laws 1956 § 28-5-7, “it shall be an unlawful employment practice: (1) for any employer: (i) to refuse to hire any applicant for employment because of his or her race or color, religion, sex, disability, age, sexual orientation, or country of ancestral origin, or (ii) Because of such reasons, to discharge an employee or discriminate against him or her with respect to hire, tenure, compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment, or any other matter directly or indirectly related to employment. . .” (See id.)