Diabetic can sue under ADA

One of HR’s biggest questions about disability accommodations: What conditions are covered under the ADA? Here’s some guidance from a recent court decision.
An employee was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. He was required to take several insulin shots daily, use other medication and strictly regulate his diet.
He could still perform most of his duties. However, his job required him to be called on as a “borrowed hand” when field crews needed extra assistance. That involved working long shifts outside and traveling to other locations, often overnight.
The employee’s doctor told him he could no longer perform field work, because it would make it difficult to treat his condition.
In 23 years of employment before his diagnosis, the employee had been used as a borrowed hand about a dozen times. He told his boss about the new restriction and asked to be exempt from those duties.
The company’s response: He could either apply for a new job within the company or take early retirement.
He did neither — instead, he sued, claiming he was disabled and the company should have changed his job duties to accommodate him.
The company’s defense was twofold: First, the employee’s diabetes wasn’t a serious-enough condition to be considered a disability. And second, field work was an essential function of his job that couldn’t be eliminated.
Could the employer get the case thrown out?
No. The court disagreed with the company on both counts. The judge ruled that his strict diet and medical regimen were significant enough to “substantially limit” several major life activities, as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Also, the court decided field work was not an essential function of the employee’s job. He’d only been called on to perform those duties an average of once every two years. And the work was not highly specialized — it would have been reasonable for the company to find someone else who could do it when the need arose.
Cite: Rohr v. Salt River Project