Research on Reasonable Accommodation ADA case

Definitions and Acronyms:

Reasonable Accommodation – assistance or changes to a position or workplace that will enable

an employee to do his or her job despite having a disability.

ADA – Americans with Disabilities Act

EEOC – Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Questions:

Does she have a qualified disability? Might be transitory? If it’s transitory then she would not
be protected under the ADA when it comes to her termination.

Whether the Hospital satisfied all of the requirements that the ADA, and EEOC list for
Reasonable Accommodation of an employee who gets injured and can no longer perform the
same tasks or duties.

Rules according to ADA and EEOC

At Will argument, any employee is terminable at the will of the employer that is the employee can
be terminated for any reason unless such reason is prohibited by law, public policy, or a
contract right.

 An employer cannot terminate an employee because:

 The employee has filed a workers’ compensation claim
 Has a health condition that constitutes a disability
 Has taken a qualified leave of ab-sence for a serious health condition or
 Has rights under a labor agreement or employee handbook

If the impairment appears significant:

Employer should require the employee to submit to a medical examination to determine fitness to
return to work

If impairments are significant and likely to be chronic, employer should engage in an interactive
with employee about the employee’s return to work.

If employee is willing to return to work, employer should consider granting leave t allow such
opportunity.

If employer cannot or will not indicate when he/she will return, the employer should begin a
progressive series of actions, including correspondence, directing the employee to return to work
by a certain date or he/she will be subject to termination for unexcused absence.
If the employee indicates that he/she cannot return to the prior position, and the employer
believes that he/she may have a disability, the employer should:
1. Assign employee to vacant position, if employee’s qualifications match the position and
matches physical or other limitations as an accommodation.

CASE LAW

1. Carr v. Reno F. 3d 525 – Court of Appeals, Dist. Of Columbia Circuit 1994:

Elements of case are a bit different. However, this rule/law that the court used in their analysis,
applies to the case at hand.

“(1) An agency shall make reasonable accommodation to the known physical or mental
limitations of an applicant or employee who is a qualified individual with handicaps unless the
agency can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the
operations of its program.

2. Aka v. Washington Hosp. Center, 156 F. 3d 1284

There is a similar fact pattern in this case, both cases deal with former employees at Hospitals
who were injured off the job, and couldn’t perform the same activities expected of them at their
previous positions in the Hospital.

Facts:
Plaintiff, Aka was working at Washington Hospital center from 1972 up until 1991, job
entailed transporting patients and equipment to and from WHC’s operating room… heavy
lifting and pushing. In 1991, hospitalized with heart and circulatory problems. Underwent
bypass surgery in November 1991. Spent several months in the hospital for rehabilitation. A
representative for WHC’s personnel department visited Aka in the hospital to discuss possible
returning to work. Aka was in rehabilitation until April 1992, doctors told him he could return
to work, with a warning that his job could not involve more than a light or moderate level of
exertion. Aka’s former job wasn’t suitable for his condition. He requested for WHC to transfer
him to a job that was compatible with his medical restrictions. WHC declined and told it was
his responsibility to look at WHC’s job postings and apply for any vacant jobs that interest
him.

WHC did put Aka on an 18 month job search leave. The applicable collective bargaining
agreement ("CBA") provides that qualified WHC employees "will be given preferential
1287*1287 treatment over non-Hospital employees in filling bargaining unit vacancies," and also
incorporates an additional preference for employees with greater seniority. WHC's decision to
place Aka on job search leave meant that Aka could retain these preferences during the leave
period.

Aka did just that and was denied for all of the positions he applied for. Finally he applied for
a position as Central Pharmacy Technician in May 1993. He was interviewed but they hired
another hospital employee.
 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A). Under the ADA's scheme, then, it is discriminatory for a covered
employer to decline to take reasonable steps to accommodate an employee's disability, unless the
steps in question "would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business" of the
employer. The ADA also provides a definition of the term "reasonable accommodation":

42 U.S.C. § 12111(9) (emphasis added). Citing this provision, Aka argues that WHC's
failure to reassign him to a vacant position violated the ADA. Aka moved for summary
judgment on his reasonable accommodation claim before the district court; the district court
denied this motion, and instead granted summary judgment to WHC. The district court
concluded that WHC could not have reassigned Aka without violating other employees'
rights under the collective bargaining agreement governing Aka's workplace. The district
court found that the ADA can never require an employer to violate such collectively
bargained rights, and that therefore Aka had no right to reassignment.

Rothmeier v. Investment Advisers, Inc., 85 F.3d 1328 (8th Cir. 1996),

Facts of case aren’t similar; however the element of Reasonable Accommodation and requirements
for claiming violation of ADA codes might help the case.

Plaintiff claimed that company fired him because of his age, then later during the trial, Plaintiff
presented evidence to support his claim that he discovered the firm wasn’t up to code with
Securities Exchange and Commission Rules, so his employer fired him to cover it up. Jury
decided that this claim undercut his age claim.
Prove that there was another reason for firing employee and not for employee’s disability.