On January 2, 2003 the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court issued its first decision analyzing an employer’s duty under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act to engage in an interactive process when determining whether or not it can reasonably accommodate a disabled employee in Canteen Corp. v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, 2002 WL 31898007 (Pa. Commw.). This is important to Pennsylvania employers because the Court for the first time clearly enunciates an employer’s affirmative obligations under the PHRA.

In Canteen, the complainant Sophie Weber was employed by Canteen Corp. as an accounting clerk. In 1987, the claimant underwent back surgery, and was restricted from lifting anything over 25 pounds. In 1999 Canteen selected Weber to cross-train in its "coin room" which required regular lifting of up to 20 lbs. When she expressed concern about the lifting, Weber was instructed to obtain an updated doctor’s note. Weber subsequently provided a note from her doctor limiting her to "sedentary" work with no lifting or bending activities. Canteen briefly met with Weber to discuss her new limitations, and when questioned, Weber acknowledged that her current position as an accounting clerk required lifting and bending. Following the meeting, Weber was informed that she was being terminated for medical reasons because Canteen had no work which fit her restrictions.

Weber filed a charge with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission alleging disability discrimination. After a hearing, the Commission found that Canteen had failed to engage in a "good faith interactive process to reasonably accommodate" Weber’s disability and awarded Weber six months back pay plus interest and reemployment. Canteen appealed.

In this case of first impression, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court was guided by federal courts interpreting the Americans with Disabilities Act when analyzing an employer’s obligation to reasonably accommodate disabled employees under the PHRA. The Court found that under the analysis in Taylor v. Phoenixville School District, 184 F.3d 296 (3d Cir. 1999) it was undisputed that Weber was disabled and was terminated because of her disability. However, Canteen argued that because Weber was restricted from any lifting or bending, she was not qualified to perform the essential functions of her job. The Court, again citing Taylor, held that once an employee asks for an accommodation, an employer is required to initiate an informal, interactive process with the employee to determine an appropriate reasonable accommodation.

The court noted that this interactive process requires the employer to take some initiative which Canteen failed to do. The court found that the only discussion Canteen had with Weber regarding her limitations lasted less than 10 minutes. Canteen also made no attempt to elicit further information regarding Weber’s disability, contact her doctor for clarification on her restrictions or send her to its own doctor to establish if she could continue to perform her current position.

The Commonwealth Court in Canteen has thus reemphasized under the PHRA what the federal courts have stressed under the ADA: that Employers have an affirmative duty to engage in an interactive process and take some initiative in coming up with reasonable accommodations for disabled employees. Employers will not be able to simply rely on a medical opinion or certification and may be required to request further information regarding the restrictions to determine if an accommodation is available.