Reference no: EM131282456
Procedures:
A. Read the exercise and review the Americans with Disabilities Act's definitions of "disability," "qualified individual" and "reasonable accommodation."
1. What issues must the court decide in each case; in other words, what does the employee base his/her ADA case on?
2. If you were a member of the jury, how would you vote? Did the employer discriminate unlawfully? Why or why not?
3. You need to make assertions about the cases and then back them up by referring to both the facts of each case and the ADA. Please cite the references to what you have read in appropriate APA format. A References page should appear at the end of your paper.
*An excellent overview of the Americans with Disabilities Act is provided at the following website: Eeoc.gov/ada/adahandbook.html. When you go to the EEOC website, click on the guidelines for small businesses, and you will find some excellent material. You can also find articles on the specific conditions and how the ADA applies to each of them by simply googling ADA and Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, for example.
RESEARCH ALL THREE CASES.
1. The Overweight Hospital Attendant
Betty Thomas applied for a position as an attendant for the mentally retarded in a residential facility operated by the Mental Health Retardation Hospital (MHRH). (This is not politically correct, but it is the language of the case.) She had previously worked for MHRH in an identical position. She had an excellent work record and left employment with MHRH on good terms. When Thomas reapplied for the position she previously held, she stood 5' 2" and weighed 320 pounds. During her pre-employment physical, it was determined that, although Thomas was morbidly obese, no limitations were found that affected her ability to do the job. MHRH refused to hire Thomas because of her obesity, claiming that her weight compromised her ability to evacuate patients in the event of an emergency and put Thomas at greater risk developing serious ailments, which might lead to higher absenteeism, as well as increasing MHRH's exposure to worker's compensation claims.
2. The Asthmatic's Nightmare
Joanna Deil was promoted to blood bank administrator for a large metropolitan hospital in 1989. Her education and experience were primarily in the general field of administration. Her work area was in a windowless basement of one of the hospital's facilities, where the blood bank fumes and poor ventilation aggravated her asthma. Deil complained to the hospital and informed the director of safety programs and the medical director about her health problems.
Three months into her new job, Deil's doctor advised her that she should stay away from the blood bank because the location was "an asthmatic's nightmare." Once Diel informed her immediate supervisor of the doctor's conclusion, Deil was allowed to administer the blood bank from an office in another part of the hospital. Her health improved rapidly over the next several months.
In 1992, the appointment of a new medical director led to a change in Deil's work routine. The new director requested to meet with Deil on a regular basis at the blood bank facility. When she refused to go to the facility, Deil was discharged. Deil's supervisor had offered to help her find another job either within the hospital or outside of it. Deil filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and, after receiving her right to sue letter, filed suit against the hospital authority in federal district court alleging discrimination on the basis of her disability.
3. The Ultimatum
Joan, a warehouse worker, was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome. She was subsequently assigned to reduced duties. However, the duties were later multiplied, increasing her arm and wrist pain. When Joan presented her employer with a doctor's note advising her to take a six-week leave of absence, the employer gave her an ultimatum - show up for work or lose her job. Joan decided to sue under the ADA, claiming her carpal tunnel syndrome was a disability worthy of accommodation.