Summary of the case
Demirelli suffers from a rare bone disease which has confined him to a wheelchair. He was hired by Convergys to respond to the client’s calls. However, due to his condition, he found the accommodation at Convergys difficult. He lived twenty to twenty-five distances from Convergys and hence had to leave home at least an hour before the reporting time to ensure he arrives on time. The parking lot was a problem. He could not find a spacious area to park his car and also, in the office, he was forced to move all around the office in search of a free cubicle. Apart from the challenges of movements within the office, Demirelli wanted to be allowed to go home with office headset to be able to log in faster. Alternatively, he requested to be allowed to log in at the training space or on his supervisor’s desk. Finally, Demirelli was uncomfortable with the lunch duration and requested that he be allowed at least fifteen minutes grace period after lunch.
Do you think the employer provided enough accommodation for the employee?
Demirelli was not offered the best accommodation in the office. First, he was not assigned a seat or a cubicle near the door where he can reach easily. Convergys have a policy where any employee can sit in any cubicle as no one is assigned any seat. Since Demirelli was wheelchair bound, the employer could have provided a seat closer to the door for him to access his seat and log in to his workstation faster.
Apart from the seating position, Demirelli says that he did not need a special treatment than others; the only thing he needed was the company to allow him a fifteen minutes grace period after lunch. Convergys did not accommodate his lunch time requirements which led to his dismissal. However, allowing Demirelli to use his headset at the training room was accommodation enough to ensure that he could log in as fast as possible when he reports. Additionally, Convergys states that they had no control over the public parking lot and hence could not have provided the special treatment Demirelli demanded. Demirelli was forced to use the handicap parking space which was far from Convergys. The employer should have provided a parking lot for people with disabilities. Therefore, in one way, the employer provided good accommodation and on the other side, such as parking and seating area, the employer did not.
Alternative accommodation
Parking is the first alternative accommodation that the employer should have provided to ensure the three minutes punctuality policy. Demirelli came late to work because he was forced to park far from the office. Since lunch time was a topic of discussion, the company could have provided lunch in office for those who had disabilities such as Demirelli. Finally, Convergys should have allocated Demirelli a cubicle which is close to the door and allow him to go home with the headset to allow him to perform his job well. The fifteen minutes, according to me, is enough since punctuality is an important function in any business. Giving more than fifteen minutes can allow for laxity and underperformance from employees.
Should the court have simply proposed parking as an accommodation?
Parking was not the only accommodation that Demirelli was not comfortable with; he was actually dismissed because he demanded more time for lunch. The court needed to have looked into other factors not only parking such as the seating positions within the organization. In my opinion, there should not be a dollar limit for accommodation since different employees demand different forms of accommodation depending on their nature. Disabled employees such as Demirelli will require a different accommodation as other employees. Therefore, the dollar limit should consider which employee is under discussion.
References
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Convergys Customer Management Group, Inc., 491 F.3d 790 (8th Cir. 2007).
