CLASS SEVEN-THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 (ADA) Prohibits private employers, state and local governments, employment agencies and others from discriminating against qualified Individuals with disabilities in all aspects of the employment relationship Qualified individual with a disability One who, without reasonable accommodation, has the requisite education, skill, experience and other job related requirements necessary to perform primary functions of the job

DEFINITION OF DISABILITY A disability in employment law is characterized by the following: A physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more life activities (eg. Hearing and loss of sight, AIDS, cancer, psychiatric disorder, mental retardation) A record of such an impairment Being regarded as having an impairment. NOTE: Learning Disabilities, such as attention deficit disorder or dyslexia, are also included.

CONDITIONS EXCLUDED FROM ADA COVERAGE Not all physical or mental conditions are covered under the ADA. Some conditions excluded are: Current drug or alcohol abuse Compulsive gambling Temporary medical conditions Most cases hold that morbid obesity is not a disability. See EEOC v. Watkins Motor Lines, 463 F3d 436. Being gay is not a “disability” under federal law; however, an increasing number of states have enacted civil rights laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (being gay or straight).

Toyota Case-Slide 1 In Toyota Motor Manufacturing v. Williams, 534 US 184 (2002), an automobile assembly line worker’s job required her to keep her arms in a raised position for a substantial amount of time. She claimed that by reason of carpal tunnel syndrome and tendinitis, she could not perform her work, and sought reassignment to different work. She was, however, able to perform household chores and gardening. The court held that, for purposes of the ADA, the disability must be sufficient to prevent or severely restrict a person from performing activities that are of central importance to most people’s daily lives. (continued next slide)

Toyota Case-Slide 2 Toyota (continued). Although the plaintiff was unable to perform some of the job functions, she was able to perform tasks that were of central importance to most people’s daily lives (cooking, housework, etc). Therefore, the court held that she was not disabled within the meaning of the ADA.

Effect of Corrective Measures-Slide 1 If corrective measures mitigate a disability to the point where it does not substantially limit the person in major life activities, it is not a disability within the meaning of the ADA. See e.g. Sutton v. United Airlines, 507 US 471 (note, citation on page 175 of the book is incorrect). In Sutton, two sisters, who were licensed commercial pilots, were rejected by United because they were unable to meet a requirement of having uncorrected vision of 20/100 in each eye. The court held that, since they did not have significant vision limitations so long as they wore corrective lenses, they were not disabled for purposes of employment.

Effect of Corrective Measures-Slide 2 The Sutton principle applies to psychological as well as physical disabilities. Thus, where a person with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is able to function so long as he takes medication (e.g. ritalin), he is not considered to be disabled. Knapp v. City of Columbus, 192 Fed.Appx. 323 (6th Cir. 2006). High blood pressure which is controllable with medication is not considered a disability. Murphy v. United Parcel Service, 527 US 516, 119 S.Ct. 2133.

REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION UNDER THE ADA Reasonable accommodation – Any modification or adjustment to the job or work environment to enable a qualified applicant or employee with a disability to complete the application process or perform essential job functions. Limited to disability – caused restrictions Employee must request accommodation Types of reasonable accommodations include: Time Physical changes to workplace/environment Reassignment

Psychological Conditions; Recovered Substance Abusers It is not easy to establish a case of disability based on depression. If the depression is not long lasting, or if despite the depression the person is still capable of working in a broad range of jobs, he or she will probably qualify for ADA accommodations. Cassimy v. Board of Education of the Rockford Public School Dist. No. 205, 461 F.3d 932 (7th Cir. 2006). Recovered substance abusers (drugs or alcohol) have been able to bring ADA claims. However, one case held that an employer did not have to rehire an employee who had been discharged after testing positive for cocaine. Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, 540 US 44.

Complications Relating to Psychological Conditions –Slide 1 People with Asperger’s Syndrome often have high mental functioning but have social deficits that can interfere with their ability to get along in the workplace. Some find it difficult to make eye contact, which co-workers and supervisors sometimes misinterpret as a hostile act. In one case, a court determined that an employee was not

Complications Relating to Psychological Conditions-Slide 2 in fact discharged because he failed to make eye contact with a supervisor, but the court at least raised the issue. Merrill v. Burke E. Porter Machinery Co., 159 Fed.Appx. 676 (6th Cir. 2005). However, employers should be aware of the eccentricities of Asperger’s employees, who can perform very well so long as their limitations are understood.

Reasonable Accommodations for Employees Having Psychological Disorders Where an employee cannot function well in a stressful job assignment, it is a reasonable accommodation for the employer to offer a less stressful position, even though the employee considers the position to be “monotonous.” Connolly v. Entex Information Systems, 27 Fed.Appx. 876 (9th Cir. 2001).

Psychological Conditions Posing Threats to Others A person can be denied employment where he or she has a medical condition that would present a direct threat to the safety of others in the workplace. For example, if a person suffered from narcolepsy, and worked at a site at which hazardous equipment was used, his presence would present a hazard to others. An employer would have a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for discharging a worker who threatened to harm a co-worker. Sista v. CDC Ixis North America, 445 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2006; it is assumed that a non-disabled worker who made the same threat would also have been fired).