Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), employers must engage in an interactive process with the employee to determine if a reasonable accommodation can be made. The following cases remind employers of the importance of this process when evaluating an employee’s workplace request due to a disability.
Medication Side Effects May Be a Disability
The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals joins other courts in holding that adverse side effects from medical treatments may be qualified as a “disability” under the ADA even when the underlying health condition does not. In Sulima v. Tobyhanna Army Depot, the plaintiff was on prescribed weight loss medication which caused him to take long restroom breaks. He supported his frequent restroom visits with a note from his doctor, and although the employer had attempted to transfer him to another location, no alternative work was available. As result, he accepted a voluntary lay off believing that he was scheduled to be involuntary laid off. In the lawsuit, he claimed that the employer discriminated against him on the basis of his disability by attempting to transfer him and laying him off. Although the Court ruled against the employee, it agreed that the side effects of the employee’s medication met the definition of an ADA disability. In light of this holding, employers should note that an employee taking medication resulting in adverse side effects may be protected under the ADA, and should engage in the interactive process to arrive at a reasonable accommodation.
“Schedule Change” as the Accommodation
The 3rd Circuit Court held that a “shift-change” qualifies as a reasonable accommodation for an employee who cannot drive at night due to a disability. In Coldwell v. Rite Aid Corp, the employee requested to be assigned only to day shifts because she could no longer drive at night due to the loss of vision to her left eye. The employer denied the request on the basis that it was not responsible for how an employee gets to work, and that transportation is not a workplace condition within its control. The Court disagreed and said that although transportation to and from work is outside the employer’s control, a shift change is not. It clarified that the employee requested for a shift change, not for assistance in getting to work. A shift change is a work condition that can be reasonably accommodated by the employer by changing the time the employee is required to be at work.
Source: EPLI Pro News, May 2010 Newsletter