The Americans with Disabilities Act requires an employer to accommodate an employee with a disability, if doing so will enable that individual to perform the essential functions of the job. The exception is if the accommodation would create undue hardship for the employer.
But when is that duty to accommodate triggered?
According to a New Jersey appellate court, Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa can do it.
And when the employer practically admits as much at a deposition = hella-stupid retaliation
An alcoholic employee can present a number of tricky legal issues affecting the workplace. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, there’s a certain dichotomy. That is, alcoholism is a disability under the Act. However, an employer can ban alcohol in the workplace and require that employees not be under the influence of alcohol.
But what about an alcoholic employee, who, while remaining sober at work, seeks a leave of absence to treat?
One of my all-time favorite ADA cases — God, am I a dork — is Keith v. County of Oakland, which I previously blogged about here. It involves a deaf lifeguard who applies for a position at a public pool and what, accommodations, if any are reasonable to allow him to perform the essential functions of the job. Why I like the case — in addition to singing the Baywatch theme when I speak about it at SHRM events — is it teaches employers never to judge a book by its cover. Even a deaf lifeguard may be qualified to perform the essential functions of the job.
Yesterday, I read about another case involving a deaf applicant for a safety-sensitive position.
Do you want the answer from me? Oh, this is awkward. I was literally asking you. But, ok, fine. I think that I can help.
It’s very well settled law that accommodating a customer’s preference to be serviced by employees of a particular race is, well, racist. A few weeks ago, this situation arose with a Lowe’s store in Virginia. A CBS affiliate reported (here) that a white Lowe’s customer refused to accept a delivery from a black Lowe’s deliveryman. According to the report, the customer specifically asked Lowe’s not to send a black delivery person. The customer told the CBS affiliate that “she had the right to have whatever she wanted and she did not feel bad about making the request for a white driver.”
Unfortunately, the story indicates that the store manager accommodated the customer by sending out a white driver instead. However, after the incident was reported to corporate, the company issued a statement denouncing the “discriminatory delivery request” as “inconsistent with our diversity and inclusion core values.” Lowe’s also terminated the store manager’s employment.
Employers are responsible for taking reasonable steps to maintain a workplace that is free from discrimination and unlawful harassment. Responsible companies have handbooks, policies, and training to help accomplish this. But, just remember that folks like customers, vendors, and the like are part of the workplace too. So, remind your workforce — especially your managers and supervisors — not to tolerate behavior that wouldn’t otherwise be condoned if displayed by an employee.
The SHRM blog does, silly. But, I can link to the preview (here) and the recap (here). Definitely check those out. Allen Smith, Manager of workplace law content at SHRM, and a host of others did a great job fielding questions about the ADA and FMLA issues that keep HR professionals up at night.
(Me? I sleep comfortably on a pile of money on top of another pile of money. Thanks for asking.)
P.S. – Special shout out to my little guy Pierce, who turns three today. May next year bring him his first body bopper victory over his older sister.
You might as well paint a huge bulls-eye on your business and open up your checkbook.
The Employer Handbook Blog