76 While the EEOC and a minority of courts have focused on extended or indefinite leave as a matter of undue hardship, almost all circuit courts have instead held that indefinite leave is not a reasonable accommodation. Evaluate Reasonable Hotel, supra note 11, at Question 44 (if an employer is able to show that the lack plenty of fish username of a fixed return date causes an undue hardship, then it can deny the leave) and Garcia-Ayala v. Lederle Parenterals, Inc., 212 F.3d 638, 648-50 (1st Cir. 2000) (plaintiff’s request for a two-month extension of leave after 15 months of medical leave could be denied only if employer showed undue hardship) that have Wood v. Green, 323 F.3d 1309, 1314 (11th Cir. 2003) (employer’s granting of leave over the years showed that employee’s disability was not improving and thus his repeated requests had become an unreasonable request for indefinite leave and a confirmation that he could not currently, or in the near future, be expected to perform his essential functions); Pickens v. Soo Line R.R., 264 F.3d 773, 777-78 (8th Cir. 2001) (request for leave was not reasonable where employee took leave 29 times in a 10-month period and sought to be allowed to work when he wanted); Walsh v. Joined Lot Serv., 201 F.3d 718, 727 (6th Cir. 2000) (where an employer has provided substantial leave – here 18 months of paid and unpaid leave – a request for additional leave of a significant duration with no clear prospect for returning to work is not a reasonable accommodation); Walton v. Psychological state Assoc. from Southeastern Pennsylvania, 168 F.3d 661, 671 (3d Cir. 1999) (while unpaid leave can be a reasonable accommodation, an employer is not required to provide repeated extensions of such leave); and Corder v. , Inc., 162 F.3d 924, 928 (7th Cir. 1998) (employer does not need to provide indefinite leave as a reasonable accommodation for employee who has frequent, unpredictable absences, especially where employer has provide extended leave over a long period of time and other reasonable accommodations to give the employee every opportunity to perform her job).
80 Contrast Conneen, supra note 49, at 329 (employer cannot merely state that punctuality is important where no evidence demonstrates this proposition, such as tardiness affected quality of employee’s performance or bank operations were harmed by her late arrival); with Earl v. Mervyns, Inc. 207 F.3d 1361, 1366 (11th Cir. 2000) (employer’s handbook emphasized the importance of punctuality, it instituted a comprehensive system of warnings and reprimands for violation of the policy, and in this particular case, employee’s job required that she report punctually at a certain time because she prepared the store before the arrival of customers and no other employees were assigned to do those duties).
81 This publication does not address the extent to which an employer may need to modify dress and grooming standards to comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (age.g., to avoid discrimination on the basis of race or as a reasonable accommodation for an employee’s religion).
82 42 U. § 12114(a) (2000) (“the term §qualified individual with a disability’ shall not include any employee or applicant who is currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs, when the entity acts on the basis of such use”); come across along with 42 U. § 12210(a) (2000) (“the term §individual with a disability’ does not include an individual who is currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs, when the covered entity acts on the basis of such use”). age.grams., kleptomania, compulsive gambling, and sexual disorders such as voyeurism and pedophilia). See 42 U. § 12211.