The Importance of Accurate Job Descriptions 

By Matthew R. Courtner

Most employers have written job descriptions. It is often easy for an employer to create a job description, sit it in a file, and only pull it out when needed during the hiring process. But employers should regularly audit job descriptions to ensure the job description is accurate and complete. The recent case of Cooper v. Dolgencorp, LLC, et al., 93 F.4th 360 (6th Cir. 2024), illustrates the importance of having up-to-date and accurate job descriptions. 

In that case, Cameron Cooper (“Cooper”) had been diagnosed with Tourette Syndrome, which caused him to have involuntary muscle movement and sounds known as “tics.” One rare tic that Cooper had was coprolalia, which caused Cooper to involuntarily use profane language and make racial slurs. 

In 2016, Coca-Cola Consolidated, Inc. (“CCCI”) hired Cooper as a delivery merchandiser. Although it knew about Cooper’s diagnosis and resulting tics when it hired him, CCCI apparently did not know the full extent of Cooper’s tics. According to CCCI, it had observed Cooper making a “whooping sound” and having “some head movements,” but his condition worsened throughout his employment. In contrast, Cooper claimed that his condition had “always” manifested by him using profanity and racial slurs, and thus, his condition did not change during his employment. However, Cooper admitted that “anxiety, stress, and anger” increased the occurrence of his tics. 

As a delivery merchandiser, Cooper delivered orders to CCCI’s customers in northeast Tennessee. CCCI’s job description stated that delivery merchandisers “were responsible for delivering, merchandising, [and] maintaining company standards at customer locations.” According to the job description, this position included “filling shelves and coolers, stocking displays, rotating products, and removing out-of-date and damaged products.” The position required customer interaction. The job description specifically noted that the employee must “foster relationship[s] with account personnel and provide superior customer service to all accounts serviced.” And the job description noted “excellent customer service skills” as a required skill for the job. 

In the fall of 2016, CCCI became aware of customer complaints about Cooper’s use of inappropriate and offensive language. According CCCI’s manager who handled customer Complaints, CCCI received “numerous and ongoing complaints” about Cooper’s use of inappropriate and offensive language while working at customers’ stores. 

In September 2017, a manager of a Dollar General store submitted a formal complaint about Cooper’s offensive language. The manager reported observing Cooper “frequently and freely” use a racial slur when he was delivering CCCI’s products. Cooper had stated the offensive racial slur in the presence of Dollar General’s employees and customers. As a result, the manager had to remove Cooper from the presence of the employees and customers and then apologized to them. 

Around the time of this complaint, CCCI’s director and HR official met with Cooper to discuss the progression of his tics. During that meeting, the director and HR official observed Cooper use racial slurs and profanity. Cooper then submitted a request for leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). CCCI approved FMLA leave. While on FMLA leave, Cooper met with a new medical provider, met with a counselor, and received different medication. Cooper’s tics seemed to decrease, and Cooper returned to work. 

In February 2018, Cooper had another incident at a Dollar General store in which he used offensive racial slurs. A co-worker was with Cooper during this incident. The co-worker reported that the Dollar General manager refused to work with Cooper during the delivery because of Cooper’s use of racial slurs. Although the co-worker explained Cooper’s condition to the manager, the manager said that Cooper’s language still upset her and that she did not want Cooper returning to her store alone. In response, CCCI modified Cooper’s route to allow him to service Dollar General stores with a co-worker.

After this incident, Cooper took a brief leave of absence during which he requested an accommodation of working in tandem with another driver while he took care of his “situation.” Before CCCI responded to Cooper’s requested accommodation, in August 2018, Cooper’s doctor released him to return to work with the restriction that he “be present with another driver.” Consequently, CCCI returned Cooper to work as a driver helper position, which had “very minimal” customer interaction since the delivery driver would handle the customer. However, the driver helper position was a seasonal position and, thus, not a permanent solution. 

In October 2019, another customer made a complaint against Cooper. Although the complaint was unrelated to Cooper’s condition, during its investigation, CCCI discovered that Cooper’s condition was “once again out of control,” as he was “repeating the ‘N-word’ over and over through his daily route and in the presence of customers.” CCCI then gave Cooper a choice of taking another leave of absence or transferring to a vacant warehouse position that involved no customer interaction. Cooper instead asked CCCI to place him on a delivery route that would not involve customer interaction. According to CCCI, there were no open non-customer routes. As such, in December 2019, Cooper took the warehouse position. 

Cooper worked the warehouse position until April 2020 when he resigned to take another job as a delivery driver. Cooper then filed a lawsuit against CCCI asserting failure to accommodate under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). The district court granted CCCI’s summary judgment motion, dismissing Cooper’s claim because Cooper could not perform the essential job function of providing “excellent customer service.” Cooper appealed to the Sixth Circuit. 

In its analysis, and of importance here, the Sixth Circuit considered whether “excellent customer service” was an essential function of Cooper’s delivery merchandiser position. As the Sixth Circuit observed, the ADA directs that the “employer’s judgment” should be considered when determining essential job functions. 42 U.S.C. 12111(8) (2024). And an employer’s written job description constitutes “evidence of the essential functions of the job.” Id. Consequently, the Sixth Circuit reviewed CCCI’s written job description. CCCI’s job description specifically stated “excellent customer service” as a required skill for Cooper’s position. Cooper did not dispute agreed that excellent customer service was an essential function. Consequently, the Sixth Circuit concluded that “excellent customer service” was an essential function of Cooper’s job. 

One of the takeaways from the Cooper case is that detailed and accurate written job descriptions are essential. Although it is often easier not to review and update job descriptions once prepared, this case illustrates the importance of having current and accurate job descriptions. In Cooper, the simple job requirement of “excellent customer service,” a skill that could easily have been overlooked since it could be seen as ubiquitous, helped establish it as an essential function of the Cooper’s job. Having this job requirement on its written job description helped CCCI persuade the district court and Sixth Circuit that Cooper could not perform the essential functions of his job, and thus, defeat Cooper’s ADA claim. 

Employers should set a schedule to examine and update job descriptions on a regular basis. In doing so, employers should review the job description with the employees who are currently performing the job to ensure that the job description accurately states the job duties and skill requirements. Having detailed and accurate written job descriptions may help you defeat an ADA claim in the future just as in the Cooper case!