For a prime example of how an employer’s actions in handling workplace disability issues can easily lead to claims for discrimination and failure to accommodate, keep reading. For context, the Georgia Court of Appeals recently upheld dismissal of an employee’s claim that his employer failed to accommodate his disability simply because state law, as opposed to federal law, provided him no remedy. See Johnson v. Lindsay Pope Brayfield & Assocs., 2022 Ga. App. LEXIS 349 (Ga. App. 2022). While the Court’s decision favored the employer, this case remains an important outlier to study and learn from.
The Facts
In 2016, Lindsay Pope Brayfield & Associates, Inc., a Georgia architectural firm (“LPB”), hired Gary Johnson, a licensed architect. At the time of hire, Johnson made LPB aware that he suffered from hearing loss and tinnitus. In 2017, Johnson acquired hearing aids, which picked up both nearby sound and distant ambient noise, but could not be adjusted for frequency or volume. Without his hearing aids, Johnson could only converse with coworkers by reading lips.
For several months without incident, Johnson’s worked on LPB’s third floor, next to his coworker, Jim Lord, both of whom reported to company president, Winford Lindsay. In November 2017, Lindsay advised Johnson that Lord had complained that he made too much “noise” and had asked for a workspace relocation. Addressing Lord’s complaint, Lindsay asked Johnson to “cut back” on his noisemaking and avoid speaking loudly, suggesting that Johnson’s loudness was attributable to his hearing aids.
Two days later, Lindsay told Johnson that due to a “reorganization” he should consider moving to another workstation on LPB’s first floor. Upon visiting the first floor, Johnson expressed concern that the workspace featured a glass wall, exposed metal and ductwork, and wood and ceramic floors, and lacked acoustic panels, rugs, or carpets. Johnson identified additional sources of noise, including street traffic, an adjacent elevator, nearby restrooms, and frequent deliveries and visitors. One employee described the first floor as being “much louder” than the third and “a distracting place to work,” opining that Johnson likely could not tune out the noise or perform his job efficiently in that environment. Given his concerns, Johnson informed Lindsay that he could not work on the first floor due to the noise, and thus he continued working on the third floor.
In December 2018, Lindsay again proposed that Johnson relocate his workstation to the first floor, but Johnson nevertheless sought to remain on the third floor. Believing Johnson to be “grumbling” over his new workspace, two days later Lindsay dispatched another manager to move Johnson’s personal items to the first floor. Upon Johnson’s discovery that his items had been moved, he returned to the first floor, shouted at the manager (who was still in the process of moving Johnson’s belongings), proclaimed that he was going to resign, and that he was “done working here.” Shortly thereafter, Johnson calmed down, apologized to the manager, and asked for more boxes.
However, upon learning of Johnson’s outburst, Lindsay, with some apparent jubilation, immediately reported to senior management that Johnson was “quitting,” directed the IT manager to “unplug [Johnson] ASAP,” and announced that if Johnson rescinded his resignation, he would nevertheless be “fired for cause.” Lindsay then told Johnson that LPB accepted his resignation.
The Analysis
After his separation, Johnson filed suit against LPB in Georgia state court, claiming that LPB had failed to accommodate his disability in violation of Georgia’s Equal Employment for Persons with Disabilities Code (the “Disability Code”), a seldom cited and poorly worded 40-year-old statute. The court dismissed Johnson’s claim without a trial on the grounds that the Disability Code does not require an employer to accommodate an employee’s disability. Rather, the express language of the Code merely requires that an employer not discriminate against, limit, segregate, or classify a disabled employee such as to deprive that individual of employment opportunities.
Johnson appealed the trial court’s decision to the Georgia Court of Appeals, which observed that, while federal law – specifically, the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) – requires an employer to reasonably accommodate an employee’s disability, the Georgia Disability Code simply does not. Rather, the Code only prohibits disability discrimination. By that interpretation, the Court held that LPB had no legal responsibility to accommodate Johnson’s request that he not be reassigned from first floor to the third. As a result, Johnson had no actionable claim against LPB for failure to accommodate, and thus the Court upheld dismissal of Johnson’s case.
But, is it really this straightforward? As one dissenting justice concluded, an employer’s refusal to provide a reasonable accommodation is “inherently discriminatory” and thus violates the Disability Code, further explaining that Johnson’s repeated complaints that he was unable to work effectively on the first floor (where he was knowingly set up to fail) and his simple request to remain on the third floor (where he had long successfully performed his job) “was neither onerous nor burdensome” and had cost LPB nothing. Pointing out that Johnson had never refused to work nor had he ever notified his supervisor of any intention to quit, the judge was convinced that LPB’s response to Johnson’s request for an accommodation was “as callous as it was deliberate” and the “abject unfairness is the essence of disability discrimination.” In opposition to the Court majority, the dissenting jurist argued that an employer’s obligation to provide reasonable accommodation is “impliedly embedded in the Code.”
Both interpretations of the Disability Code are important, as had Johnson instead alleged that LPB discriminated against him because of his disability, his claim would likely have survived pretrial dismissal. Likewise, had Johnson instead invoked the federal ADA, instead of resting his case on the Georgia Code, he could have asserted claims for disability discrimination and failure to accommodate, and conceivably survived dismissal of both claims.
Indeed, the prevailing facts reveal some managerial animosity and frustration toward Johnson, in part due to his demeanor and noisemaking, but equally in part due to his repeated requests for reassignment. These facts also raise questions about whether LPB terminated Johnson because of his disability or at least in retaliation for his complaints about his workspace. And, the facts are equally unclear whether LPB truly provided Johnson with a reasonable accommodation in the first place. These academic, post-game considerations naturally lead to the conclusion that this case could have gone very differently had Johnson instead alleged state and federal disability discrimination claims and a federal failure to accommodate claim, and further beg the question of whether the Disability Code will ultimately be expanded to include accommodation obligations.
The Takeaway
Whereas LPB won the case, namely on technical as opposed to factual grounds, astute employers should remain mindful that under both Georgia and federal law it is unlawful to take adverse action against an employee because of his/her disability. And, under federal law, an employer is also obligated to provide a disabled employee with a reasonable accommodation. And, as interpreted by at least one appellate judge, Geogia law implicitly requires that an employer accommodate an employee’s disability.
In difficult workplace disability cases, management’s communications, efforts, and motives will invariably be scrutinized against the backdrop of a disabled employee’s limitations, medical requirements, and cooperative spirit. Oftentimes, despite best efforts, perception becomes reality, with misunderstandings, stray comments, and hurt feelings laying the foundation for vexing disability discrimination, retaliation, and failure to accommodate claims. As this case highlights, employers must approach accommodation requests with patience and a willingness to facilitate an open dialogue, ensuring that they don’t rush to judgment. We have extensive experience navigating complex workplace disability and accommodation issues, and perhaps we can help your company too. To learn more about our expertise, contact Agenzia.
(6.2.2026)
Agenzia
