An employee was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. He was required to take several insulin shots daily, use other medication and strictly regulate his diet.

He could still perform most of his duties. However, his job required him to be called on as a “borrowed hand” when field crews needed extra assistance. That involved working long shifts outside and traveling to other locations, often overnight.

The employee’s doctor told him he could no longer perform field work, because it would make it difficult to treat his condition.

In 23 years of employment before his diagnosis, the employee had been used as a borrowed hand about a dozen times. He told his boss about the new restriction and asked to be exempt from those duties.

The company’s response: He could either apply for a new job within the company or take early retirement.

He did neither — instead, he sued, claiming he was disabled and the company should have changed his job duties to accommodate him.

The company’s defense was twofold: First, the employee’s diabetes wasn’t a serious-enough condition to be considered a disability. And second, field work was an essential function of his job that couldn’t be eliminated.

Could the employer get the case thrown out?

No. The court disagreed with the company on both counts. The judge ruled that his strict diet and medical regimen were significant enough to “substantially limit” several major life activities, as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Also, the court decided field work was not an essential function of the employee’s job. He’d only been called on to perform those duties an average of once every two years. And the work was not highly specialized — it would have been reasonable for the company to find someone else who could do it when the need arose.

Cite: Rohr v. Salt River Project

To ensure workplace safety, the company required all employees operating equipment such as forklifts and bulldozers to take a medical exam every three years. The exam included tests for hearing, vision, heart problems and reflexes.

There were no medical conditions that automatically disqualified employees from the job. Rather, in questionable cases, the results were sent to a physician for an opinion on whether the employee could perform his job safely.

A long-time worker had passed the exam several times — then one year, he refused to take it. The company reassigned him to a job that didn’t require the medical certification.

He sued, claiming the testing requirement violated the ADA. But the court ruled in favor of the company.

The employer was simply trying to provide a safe workplace — and periodic testing was an appropriate way to achieve that goal. As the court noted, the company couldn’t be expected to wait until there was an accident to learn an employee couldn’t perform the job.

Moreover, everything included in the test had a bearing on the individual’s ability to stay safe. And employees weren’t disqualified automatically based on certain medical conditions — they were all assessed individually based on the opinion of a doctor.

Cite: Wice v. General Motors Corp.

Here’s a case where an employee sued because she thought her company took too long to accommodate her — even though she got everything she asked for in the end.

The woman was diagnosed with a rare blood disease and could no longer perform all the duties of her job. Specifically, her doctor said she needed to avoid highly stressful activities.

She told her boss what she could and couldn’t do, and the employer temporarily placed her in a different position, keeping her salary the same.

Due to staffing concerns, the transfer couldn’t be permanent, so the company tried to rearrange her old job to accommodate her. As requested, some of her duties were removed, and restrictions were placed on when her shifts could be scheduled.

But she sued the company anyway. Why? She claimed it took the company too long to figure out an accommodation.

The court didn’t buy it. The law gives no time limit for getting through the interactive process, and in the end, the woman got what she wanted. Also, she didn’t lose any money while she was waiting because she was paid her usual salary throughout.

If she had been put in a lower-paying job, she may have been able to argue that the company’s delay was detrimental to her.

Cite: Wilson v. County of Orange

In one recent case, an employee was diagnosed with anxiety and depression. He had sleeping problems and needed a short stay in the hospital after a panic attack.

The apparent cause: the employee’s boss. He claimed the problems began after receiving two negative performance reviews and being told he needed to increase his sales.

As his performance problems continued, the last straw came after he broke company policy by misusing his corporate credit card. He was fired.

The employee sued, claiming he was terminated because of a disability.

But the court didn’t buy it — his condition wasn’t serious enough to be a legally protected disability. To meet the standard, the judge said, the condition needs to have permanent or long-term effects.

In this case, the problems were situational — therefore, the depression and anxiety would only last as long as he worked for the same supervisor.

Cite: Maslanka v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc.

In one recent case, an employee was fired after dozing off during duty.

His job: flight instructor for Southwest Airlines. Frequently he would fall asleep while giving lectures. The problems continued for about a year and a half before he was terminated.

The employee suffered from sleep apnea — meaning he often couldn’t control when he fell asleep. He told his manager the problems would be limited if his shift was changed — but that would have required other employees working longer, so no change was made.

He also argued that he could work just fine despite his condition. But the company wouldn’t take any chances — after all, his job was to make sure pilots could do their jobs safely. So, without any other options, the company fired him.

He sued, claiming Southwest fired him because of his disability, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Accommodating sleeping disorders

Who won the case?

Answer: the company.

The court ruled it would’ve been unreasonable for the company to continue having an employee with a sleep disorder train their pilots on how to stay safe. Since he couldn’t perform the essential functions of his job — and no reasonable accommodation seemed to be available — the company was right in firing him.

Note: ADA suits are always case-specific. A condition that prevents employees from performing one job may not have the same result in others.

In some positions, allowing an employee the chance to take short rest periods may be a reasonable accommodation for a sleeping disorder.

What unusual accommodation requests have you received? Let us know in the comments section below.

Cite: Grubb v. Southwest Airlines

Here’s what happened in one recent case:

While at work, an employee developed a respiratory condition. Her symptoms included trouble breathing, a bad cough, migraines and nausea.

The cause: perfume worn by a co-worker who sat nearby. The employee suffered from a “sensitivity to perfumes, chemicals and other scented objects.”

She told her manager about the problem and asked that something be done so she could continue working. One of her suggestions was relocating either her or the co-worker to another part of the building. She also provided an example of a policy banning strong perfumes in the workplace.

The manager’s response: “If you’re allergic to perfumes, it’s your problem, not the company’s.”

No action was taken, and the employee sued, claiming the company failed to accommodate her disability.

The court ruled in her favor. First, the judge ruled the woman’s sensitivity substantially limited her major life activities, and was therefore a disability under the ADA.

And, the court decided, several reasonable accommodations were available, including relocation and the policy suggested by the employee. By not using one of those suggestions, or even searching for another option, the company failed to meet its legal obligations.

Cite: McBride v. The City of Detroit

The process won’t always be successful in keeping a disabled employee on the job. But the law requires employers to try.

Here are some keys for doing it right, from the employment law firm Jackson Lewis:

• Don’t just spell out one accommodation as a take-it-or-leave-it offer. It’s possible there’s only one reasonable solution, but all alternatives should be considered and discussed before the decision is made.
• Ask for the employee’s preference. The law says employees and employers have to have an interactive conversation. That doesn’t mean the employee will get what he or she wants, but the company at least needs to explain why the preferred accommodation is unreasonable.
• Document everything. If no reasonable accommodation is found, a written record of everything that was discussed with the employee will be necessary to prove the company did everything it could and met its legal obligations.
• Don’t forget the “last resort” accommodation — transferring the employee to an empty position that he or she can handle. But remember, that’s only to be considered after all other possibilities are exhausted.

The key is having an open discussion, rather than offering one take-it-or-leave-it solution.

In a recent case, an employee was having trouble doing her job because of a disability. When she saw her boss to talk about possible accommodations, the manager offered to transfer her to another position. The employee turned the offer down.

She then suggested a number of other options, including low-cost equipment that would help and a slight change in procedure that could enable her to get the work done. But the manager repeated that she could transfer to another job and refused to discuss the other possibilities.

The woman was later fired for poor performance and policy violations. She sued, claiming the company failed to accommodate her disability.

The court ruled in her favor. Though job transfers sometimes qualify as reasonable accommodations, the judge ruled that is only a last resort to be taken once the company examines other possibilities that keep the disabled employee in his or her current position.

Failing to even consider other reasonable alternatives, the company did not meet its legal obligations.

The bottom line: Disabled workers don’t always get the accommodations they want. But companies are required to engage in an “interactive process” with the employee to figure out a solution that is best for the employee, but still reasonable for the company.

Cite: Austin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

They can, if they reveal enough information about candidates’ mental states.

In one court case, three rejected job applicants sued after they failed a pre-employment personality test given by the employer.

The company gave the tests to determine whether applicants had the right personality traits for the job.

The problem: The test was similar to those used by psychologists to determine if patients suffer from mental disorders such as depression, hysteria and paranoia. For example, applicants were asked if they:

• hear voices without knowing where they are coming from
• have fits of laughing and crying that they cannot control, and
• have a habit of counting things that are not important.

Therefore, the applicants claimed, the test was a medical examination, and the company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by giving applicants a medical exam before they were offered jobs.

The company argued that the test wasn’t a medical exam because it wasn’t interpreted by a doctor.

But the court disagreed. Since the test revealed symptoms of personality disorders, it was considered a medical examination under the ADA, and using it before jobs were offered was a violation of the law.

Cite: Karraker v. Rent-a-Center, Inc.

The key is distinguishing between personality tests and medical examinations that can be used to diagnose psychological disorders.

How can companies tell the difference? The EEOC says tests may be illegal if they are:

• administered by a healthcare professional
• interpreted by a healthcare professional
• designed to reveal a physical or mental impairment
• detailed enough to be considered “invasive”
• designed to measure an applicant’s “psychological response to performing a task” (rather than “an ability to perform the task”)
• normally given in a medical setting, and
• administered using medical equipment.

Normally, courts will look at a combination of those factors before ruling against a company — but sometimes one is enough.

For example, in this case the company lost because it used a test that was normally administered in a medical setting — even though the results weren’t interpreted by medical professionals.

Because of the danger of those types of lawsuits, its important for employers to:

• examine what information their testing may uncover
• make sure the tests are job-related and reveal traits relevant to the specific positions they’re used for, and
• only use tests that have been validated as ADA-compliant.