That’s right folks. It’s time for another edition of “Fact or Fiction” a/k/a “Quick Answers to Quick Questions” a/k/a QATQQ f/k/a “I don’t feel like writing a long blog post.”
Try this one for size, folks.
In this case, an employee argued that her former employer retaliated against her, by terminating her for complaining about the favorable treatment a co-worker with a special needs child received.
Two big EEOC pet peeves right now are:
- employers who discriminate in the hiring process; and
- employers who violate the Americans with Disabilities Act based on misconceived notions about how an individual’s health could impact that person’s ability to perform essential job functions.
Recently, I gave a webinar about the interplay between the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. One of the takeaways there was that, when an employee’s 12 weeks of FMLA leave expire, you need to be thinking about ADA implications rather than processing a pink slip at 12 weeks and a day. This is because additional leave may be a reasonable accommodation.
The same issues can arise if you have a pregnant employee. That is, you need to consider the interplay between the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the ADA.
A recent case shows how the ADA may apply to pregnant employees.
These blogging fingers have had much to say about telecommuting as a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, these blogging fingers are going to dunk broccoli into spinach dip.
Ok, I’m back.
Back in 2011, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Walgreens from disability discrimination. Specifically, the EEOC claimed that Josefina Hernandez, a cashier at Walgreens’ South San Francisco store, who suffered from diabetes, was on duty when she opened a $1.39 bag of chips because she was suffering from an attack of hypoglycemia (low blood sugar).
The EEOC further alleged that Walgreens knew of Ms. Hernandez’s disability and fired Ms. Hernandez after being informed that Hernandez had eaten the chips because her blood sugar was low, even though she paid for the chips when she came off cashier duty.
When Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendment Act, which went into effect on January 1, 2009, it indicated that one of its purposes was to “convey that the question of whether an individual’s impairment is a disability under the ADA should not demand extensive analysis.”
I vaguely recall some of the floor discussion in anticipation of the passage of the ADAAA:
“I yield to the Senator.”
On Monday, it was public urination.
Yesterday, we had indecent proposals.
And today, the blogging gods, in which I hold a sincerely-held belief, serve me up this federal court opinion about an alcoholic named David Crosby — not that David Crosby, but still — who sued his former employer for supposedly violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, as a result of his termination of employment after a 30-day stint in rehab.
Oh, sweet child! Someone catch me; I do believe I have the vapors.
Let us rejoice in the bounty together, after the jump…
I’m pretty sure Larry David had this written into the Seinfeld Parking Garage episode before making a last-minute script change to uromysitis.
I would have stuck with the former. But, Mr. David is a comedic genius and I just write this crappy blog.
How bad is this blog, you ask? I was contemplating using the words “wicked pissah” in the lede, only to realize that I’d already used them.
Then again, you’re the ones reading this. Go ahead. Click through to read more after the jump…
* * *
Let’s say that you have an employee whom the Americans with Disabilities Act would consider disabled and to whom you have afforded a reasonable accommodation for a long time.
Maybe it’s a few years of light duty to accommodate your employee’s bad back. Maybe it’s keeping your employee with medically-documented sleeping issues off of the graveyard shift.
Or maybe, like in this case, it’s allowing an employee who takes morning meds for ADD and bipolar disorder to arrive to work a late, so the meds can kick in. Indeed, for 2 1/2 years, the employee in this particular situation was accommodated with modified start time.
The Employer Handbook Blog