Going by the details of the case, I do not think that the employers in this case made a best effort to reasonably accommodate the employee. It is seen that the worker had made all efforts to avoid getting late, but his medical condition would not allow it. However, despite his request for a simple 15-minute extension, the employer turned it down (Emerson 624). This was so despite the employer’s full knowledge that the employee was disabled and had difficulties with parking and finding a workstation due to the setting of the workplace. It is also noteworthy that the worker did not request for outrageous accommodations as he only asked to be allowed fifteen minutes before workday and after lunch so that he could be at his workstation in time.
After reading the case details, I concur with the court’s judgment that allowing fifteen minutes at the beginning of the workday and after lunch is a reasonable accommodation (Emerson 624). This is because fifteen minutes would neither alter the company’s work schedule nor jeopardize its punctuality rule and job function. It would only create a different time for the worker to return to work. Furthermore, the non-discrimination law provides that employees should enact time adjustments where failure to do so amounts to discrimination based on the employee’s disadvantage. This coupled with the fact that there was no evidence that the accommodation amounted to disruption of the employee’s job function or the punctuality rule validates the judge’s ruling.
If increasing the number of special needs parking spaces would have allowed Demirelli to arrive at work on time, it would have been fine for the court to require the employer to make the accommodation instead of the fifteen minutes. However, the cost of the accommodation should be considered especially where there are alternative options. To this end, I think there should be a cost limit on the price of a reasonable accommodation to ensure that both the employees and the employers are served justly. This is because sometimes, allowing an accommodation may be costly to the extent that is constitutes an additional expense. A reasonable dollar limit should be designed to ensure that costs of accommodations are not used by employers to discriminate against employees, but at the same protect the employers from exorbitant, unnecessary expenses. All in all, the ruling in this case is justified and lawful, since the employer fails to prove that the claims by Demirelli are not substantial.
Works Cited
Emerson, Robert, W. Business Law. 5th ed. New York: Barrons’ Educational Series, Inc., 2009.
eBook.
