Danny Snapp v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company

In 2013 on appeal from a summary judgment dismissing claims for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §12101 et. seq., the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded for trial on the questions whether Snapp made a request of his employer for reasonable accommodation; and if so, whether the employer fulfilled a mandatory obligation to initiate an interactive process with Snapp to identify an accommodation. At trial on remand, both parties requested instructions on the employer’s obligation to engage in the interactive process. The trial judge declined to do so and the jury rendered a verdict against plaintiff. The first question presented is: 1. At the trial of an ADA claim for failure to provide reasonable accommodation, upon proof that the employer failed to initiate an interactive process after an employee’s request for accommodation, is the disabled employee entitled to a jury instruction explaining the employer’s obligation to engage in good faith in an interactive process to identify an accommodation; and, the effect of an employer’s breach of the obligation? At trial, the trial judge declined to give Snapp’s proposed instruction advising the jury that, if Snapp proved defendant breached a mandatory obligation to engage with him in the interactive process, defendant bore the burden of proving no reasonable accommodation was possible. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Panel decided that the employer does not bear the burden of proving no reasonable accommodation was possible when the employer breaches its obligation