A lot of the so-called business experts say the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) could well turn into employers’ biggest headache over the next decade. A recent federal case in Pennsylvania could well be a harbinger of things to come.
The case revolves around a pharmacy retail clerk whose hours were divided between day and night-time shifts.
She suffered from eye disease and eventually went blind in her left eye. Although she still had vision in her right eye and was able to work, her doctor recommended that she not drive at night.
Because public transportation wasn’t available after 6 p.m., the woman asked that she be assigned only day shifts. Her supervisor refused, saying it “wouldn’t be fair” to other workers.
For a time, the woman asked family members to shuttle her to and from work — a practice she called a “hardship.” She continued to seek a day-time only schedule, eventually asking the help of her union representative. When his entreaties failed, she quit, leaving a handwritten note that said in part: “I feel I have not been given fair treatment … No one deserves that kind of treatment.”
Commute’s the problem
The woman filed suit, claiming the employer should have accommodated her disability by allowing her to work a daytime schedule.
The company countered that the woman didn’t need an accommodation to perform her job. Where she was having difficulty was in her commute — and the company had no obligation to bend over backwards to help her get to work.
But a federal appeals court thought otherwise. The judge, reversing a lower court decision, said that changing the woman’s schedule “in order to alleviate her disability-related difficulties in getting to work is a type of accommodation that the ADA contemplates.”
The court’s reasoning: The accommodation wasn’t really about the woman’s commute, an issue that was outside the working relationship. It was about deciding when she worked — an issue that was definitely within the control of the employer.
When the ADA Amendments Act was passed last year, its sponsors said they’d proposed the law in part because the courts were interpreting ADA regs too narrowly. Is this case an indication that judges will be taking a more employee-friendly approach to ADA suits? Only time will tell.
Cite: Colwell v. Rite Aid Corp.
