1. To what extent could Phoenix’s liability have been avoided had it documented Wilson’s alleged inability to perform required tasks on the new computer system? In your opinion, is Phoenix required to wait until Wilson makes a costly mistake before concluding that he cannot perform the functions of the job? Are there alternatives short of waiting for a mistake?
James Wilson has been employed by Phoenix Specialty Manufacturing Company a family business that manufactures specialty washers used in aircrafts. However, the company asserts that Wilson’s employment was terminated due two reasons. The first reason was that Wilson had been diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease a degenerating disease that affects the nervous system and thus Wilson was considered unable to work effectively. Secondly, the company asserted that it was undergoing a workforce reduction process that required the dismissal of a number of employees. Thus the company managed to lay off Wilson who felt that he had been unfairly dismissed from duty and thus sued the company in the District Court.
Phoenix’s liability could not have been avoided had it documented Wilson’s alleged inability to perform key tasks such as operating the new computer system. This is due to the fact that the liability that the company was facing was not due to whether Wilson was ill or not. None of the parties argue whether Wilson is impaired or not. All parties agreed that Wilson had been diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease a condition that affects the nervous system. The liability of the company was from several aspects regarding to the manner in which it handled the said inability issues.
First, the company admits that Wilson was diagnosed with a disease that affected his ability to perform tasks at the normal pace. In an email from the company president Robert Hurst to the human resource, Hurst asserts that Wilson was physically impaired and that he qualified for provision under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and thus the company would have to consider him for such accommodative measures. Instead of finding solutions to have Wilson continues working for the company, he was discharged, for this Phoenix was liable.
Secondly, the company was liable in the manner in which it discharged Wilson from duty. Phoenix claimed that it was undertaking a workforce reduction strategy due to diminished sales after 9/11. The court dismissed this assertion because only two employees were involved in the workforce reduction scheme. Additionally, the other employee who was dismissed was immediately rehired as an hourly employee and a second clerk hired two weeks after Wilson’s dismissal. This points to the direction that the company had schemed to have him discriminated due to disability claims. Thus liability did not arise from failure to record medical findings instead liability was from the manner the company handled the dismissal.
While I don’t agree that the company should wait until Wilson makes a costly mistake before making such a decision, the company would proactively accommodated him. In this sense the company would have reviewed doctor’s approval that much of his motor control and other activities were under control with medication. Moreover, the company should have then provided Wilson with adequate assistive tools. Providing him with assistance in personnel on important activities would have ensured the important activities are done by able individuals and Wilson would have still retained his job.
2. What could Phoenix have done to improve its handling of the medical diagnoses? Where did it go wrong?
The first mistake that company did in handling Wilson’s diagnosis was considering Wilson disabled. The company argued that company officials considered Wilson to be substantially limited in performing manual tasks important for the job. The company claimed that Wilson would not be able to adequately key information into the computer or see what was on computer screens. However, even with such considerations, company officials did not regard him to be disabled.
These assertions of the company about Wilson’s condition were found to be inaccurate. The company found the limitations of the Parkinson’s disease to be more limiting than they actually were. The company physician Dr. Bergmann had satisfactorily cleared Wilson’s due to the fact that the disease was fairly under control when using medication. Although the court recognized diminished abilities in handwriting skills and fine motor control, Wilson was found to be able in handling other task involved in his supervision job. Additionally, the company had not taken enough time to train him on the new computer system, instead opted to have him dismissed on non-performance grounds despite the fact that Wilson had tried his best to master new system.
Policy
In any organization, there is bound to be cases of terminal diseases that affect the cognitive abilities and physical performance of the employees. Companies need to handle such matters with open-mindedness and intention to assist such persons in doing their jobs.
Firstly the company should rely on recommendations from physicians and specialists on the conditions of the illness. The company should consider such recommendations as specialists understand the extent to nature to which these conditions affect cognitive or manual abilities. In the Wilson case, the specialist directed that the employee should be allowed to continue since medications were able to manage the symptoms. However, even with such diagnosis, the company should take measures to have sensitive tasks handled by assistants. Companies should also provide assistive tools and technologies that physically impaired persons use to continue working in their usual jobs. Finally, instead of dismissing such employees, they could be transferred to other departments that do not require careful motor-control.
