The facts:

An employee who was being treated for cancer suffered from dry mouth and throat as a side effect of the treatment, and had to consume large amounts of water throughout the day to combat the side effect.

As a result, she asked for two disability accommodations:

• Relaxing of a rule that prohibited drinks of any kind at workstations.
• Permission to leave the workstation often, and without asking, because of a frequent need to use the restroom.

She was granted both accommodations, and worked under those conditions for several months without incident except for one time:  A substitute boss who hadn’t been informed of the employee’s condition refused to all the employee to leave the workstation during an especially busy period. The employee wet her pants.

The employee sued for denial of a disability accommodation.

The employee said:
The temporary supervisor’s blunder caused extreme embarrassment, besides being an illegal breach of the agreement to grant her the accommodation.

The employer said:
The employee had worked under the accommodation conditions for several months without a hitch — in that the regular supervisor had never once denied the employee the accommodation. The incident in question was a simple mistake in communication, in that the temp supervisor wasn’t aware of the accommodation, and would have granted it had he been aware. Further, the employer maintained, the employee should have informed the boss of the accommodation or should have just left the workstation to use the restroom.

Who won the case?

Answer: The employee, who received $200,000 in damages from the employer.

Why: The court rejected the employer’s argument on two counts –

• The employee was under no obligation to inform the boss of the accommodation. The legal language for such an event is called continuing the “interactive process” — the back and forth between employee and supervisor to arrive at a reasonable accommodation. The court said the employee had already engaged in the interactive process and was under no obligation to continue it with another supervisor once the accommodation had been granted.
• Even a single incident of failure to accommodate can have more-than-trivial consequences. An employer must be vigilant about maintaining the accommodation at all times. In short, someone should have informed the temp supervisor about the situation.

Cite: A.M v. Albertsons LLC.

The scene:

“And so the doctor says I’m going to have to stick with a permanent eight-hour schedule to keep my blood sugar on an even keel,” Frankie explained to his supervisor, Lisa.

At hearing the news, Lisa rocked back in her chair and let out a deep breath as she spoke: “That’s going to be a problem.

“I agreed to let you go on an eight-hour schedule temporarily to see if it would help straighten out your diabetes. But with that big new customer we just signed, I’m expecting everyone – and I do mean everyone – to work overtime.”

“I’d love the overtime,” Frankie countered. “But it’s a choice between money and my health.”

“OK,” Lisa nodded, “then maybe I can get you transferred to maintenance. They’re about the last group still working only eight hours a day.”

“That’ll mean an hourly pay cut,” Frankie said. “I can’t live with that, either.”

OT required
Frankie continued to refuse the transfer. After he was fired, he insisted in a lawsuit that the company had accommodated his health problem and should continue to do so – by letting him stay in his job and not requiring him to work overtime.

The company said OT was a mandatory part of the job, and asked a judge to throw the case out of court.

Did the company win?

Yes, the company won when a judge dismissed the case.In doing so, the judge explained that, yes, diabetes qualifies as a legitimate disability and any employee who suffers from it is eligible for a reasonable accommodation.

However, the judge also noted that reasonable accommodation doesn’t translate to any accommodation the employee desires.

When the supervisor established that overtime was a crucial part of job, that meant refusing to work overtime couldn’t be under the accommodation umbrella. Plus, the company had offered the employee a job that fit his schedule.

And what about the fact that the supervisor had allowed the employee to work a limited schedule on a temporary basis? That, the judge said, didn’t commit the company to keeping the schedule permanently.

‘Essential functions’
The Americans with Disabilities Act requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with qualified illnesses or injuries.

The Act states, however, that the employee must be able to perform the “essential functions” of the job – usually those demanded of other employees in similar positions.

[Based on: Rehrs v. The Iams Co.]

The case — Kellogg v. Energy Safety Servs. Inc. — concluded last month after a round of appeals over whether an employee with epilepsy who was barred from operating a motor vehicle could then demand disability accommodations from an employer.

A federal court handed down a firm “no” on the question.

Safety issues
The employee, who as part of her job had to drive to various locales, asked to be relieved of the driving duties after she suffered seizures and was diagnosed with epilepsy. The company argued that any other job for which she qualified had safety requirements the employee couldn’t meet. She eventually was let go by the employer, and then sued for violation of the ADA, saying that the driving restriction proved she met the requirements for a disability accommodation.

The federal court, citing the wording in the ADA regs, which don’t list “driving” as a major life activity, disagreed and found in favor of the employer.

Will the new amendments to the ADA change that? No one’s really sure. Here’s a legal summary of what the staff at one law firm thinks.