Question One
In this case Dr. Drew is under obligation to study the ADA to understand why and when a leave of absence should be considered appropriate in workplace accommodation. He should do a research to know exactly how long such a leave should last and the implications of denying Charlie the leave. Dr. Drew ought to know if the request for a leave of absence is reasonable or effective before he decides to terminate Charlie from the employment contract. Employers are facing challenges tying to comply with the complex ADA and at times they are not sure about their obligations (Walsh)
If Dr. Drew fails to handle request for a leave of absence by Charlie appropriately, Charlie can file a case in a court of law because his reasons of absence are reasonable enough. Such a law suit can be detrimental to the well-being of his company in relation to financial position. In addition, the image of the company is likely to be ruined if Dr. Drew terminates Charlie’s employment contract.
Dr. Drew should review the company’s policy that states that employees who miss two consecutive days without calling off are considered to have abandoned their employment. Although Charlie missed work on Monday and Tuesday and did not comply with Dr. Drew's call-off procedures, he can prove without reasonable doubt that he checked into an in-patient rehabilitation center earlier that morning (Walsh). According to EEOC regulations, if an employer terminates employee’s employment due to a policy which has not been approved in a court of law, such an employer violates ADA and is liable to prosecution
Question 2
The ADA-issues implicated by this fact pattern is accommodating employees suffering from diabetes. Although the act does not list disorders that are regarded as disabilities, it defines disability as either a mental or a physical impairment which limits major life activities substantially. EEOC regulations, 2011 classified diabetes as a disability because by its nature, it limits an individual’s life activities substantially (Walsh).
Robert has been diagnosed with diabetes and Texas Tree Trimming is aware of this fact. Robert is entitled to accommodations by Texas Tree to enable him perform his job. The company should provide for administration of insulin medications for Robert, proper containers for disposing needles as well as syringes, give Robert breaks for taking food as need arises, modify policies in relation to food consumption and storage, provide the necessary foods during company sponsored events and programs and an area for testing levels of blood sugar (Feuerstein)
In this case Robert dropped his chainsaw, which barely missed Drayton. Texas tree is under obligation to provide him with protective working equipment and clothing that do not endanger his life or that of others. In addition, the need for sharp tools of work needs to be minimized. Trimming a tree 40 feet in the air in a bucket is a very strenuous exercise which diabetes employees should not be subjected to. Texas tree should consider hiring an additional employee to share the job with Robert to allow him sometime for resting. The company seems not to have done this which is a violation of ADA as well as EEOC regulations. To accommodate Robert, Texas Tree should comply with aforementioned guidelines. It is worth noting that some diabetic employees need all these accommodations while others may require just a few accommodations but Texas Tree is bound to make them available to Robert at all time.
Question 3
A Virginia Court Ruled in 2009 that a hospital is under no obligation to accommodate a nurse with lifting restrictions because of the associated inability to perform duties. In our case Abby works as nurse in an emergency room in a hospital where one of the job descriptions is the ability to lift 50 lbs. Although Abby submitted a doctor's note indicating that she had a 10 lb. lifting restriction pending the birth of her child, which amounts to disability under ADA, the hospital cannot accommodate her because it is difficult to establish if she can still perform her duties with reasonable accommodation. In the case at Virginia court, it was ruled that a nurse must be in a position to lift the prescribed weight given the nature and requirements of an emergency room. Employers in the healthcare need to understand that ADA accommodation depends on specific limitations and restrictions of employees. Facts on which decisions are based on must be carefully documented. Employers need to be cautious when handling employees with restrictions on lifting abilities to avoid violating ADA (Morris).
Question 4
In this case Shotz is contemplating terminating Laverne’s employment after exceeding the maximum allowable leave of 24 weeks (6 months). Such as decision would however expose the company to ADA-related risks associated with terminating an employee’s employment under these circumstances. Employers are under the obligation to accommodate employees who are not completely healed at the end of their leave. In this case Laverne was diagnosed with cancer which is a disability under the ADA because it substantially limits her ability to perform duties in the company (Walsh). ADA prevents employers from terminating employment contracts of employees with disabilities and who have exhausted their personal and medical leave. ADA recommends that employers should consider worksite accommodation before firing such employees.
In this case if Shotz terminates Laverne’s employment, it would cost the company millions of dollars in law suits because this is a gross violation of ADA and EEOC regulations (Walsh, 2013). Many companies have lost money in cases related to inappropriate termination of disabled employees because they have exhausted their maximum allowable leave according to the company policy. It is therefore wise for Shotz to evaluate its current policy in relation to leave of absence to reasonably accommodate Laverne because the circumstances warrant that.
Question 5
Under ADA an employer can modify the job of an employee as a reasonable accommodation in which case the employee is not entitled to the previous salary or benefits she enjoyed before. In this case assuming Laverne is able to return to work after 24 weeks of leave, Shotz is under no obligation to displace Shirley as first-shift Line Supervisor. However, under ADA the company should reasonably accommodate Laverne even if it means modifying her job and salary accordingly. Further, Shirley is much more organized than Laverne, and the first shift is running better than ever so the interests of the company supersedes the interests of any individual employee. Growth and development are essential for any business that needs to sustain itself in the market (Idaho). Since Shirley has better management skills that Laverne who extended her leave, the company does not violate the law by promoting Shirley. Shirley can continue being the supervisor and Laverne can take up another job.
Question 6
This case relates to religious accommodation in places of work. Employers are prohibited from any kind of discrimination to employees because of their religious beliefs in either firing, terms of employment or hiring. Only religious organizations are entitled to discrimination in hiring and hiring in Title VII of Civil human rights Act (1964). The law also provides for employers to reasonably accommodate religious beliefs of their employees except in cases where it would lead to undue hardship on the part of the employer. In this case Gunther is being prohibited from practicing his religious beliefs and practices. It is evident that Central Perk's heavily tattooed and pierced customers have never commented on Gunther's tattoo which implies that no undue hardship is caused to the employer (Walsh).
The law prohibits Central park from discriminating Gunther on the basis of tattoo on the wrist. In addition the company is under the obligation to stop Chandler Bing, the regional manager for central park from compelling Gunther to hide the tattoo. Gunther’s faith is against deliberate concealing of tattoos by the believers. It is unlawful for Central Perk to discriminate employees on the basis of their religious beliefs and practices (United States). Although this is a commitment to family values, this should not be extended in to the workplace as Title VII of civil rights prohibits that. In addition the employee in question does not cause any hardship to the employee. Most customers of the company fancy tattoo and do not complain about Gunther. He has worked here for more than six years implying he is a loyal employee.
References
Feuerstein, Michael. Work and cancer survivors. New York: Springer.2009.
Idaho., & Idaho Job Service. Making a difference: An employer's handbook on hiring people with disabilities. Boise, ID: Idaho Dept. of Employment, Personnel & Training Bureau. 1991.
Morris, Richard. Disability research and policy: Current perspectives. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 2006.
United States. Religious discrimination: Employment discrimination prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. Washington, D.C: United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Technical Assistance Program. 2002.
Walsh, David. Employment law for human resource practice. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning. 2013.
