Diabetic can sue under ADA
March 6, 2009 by Sam NarisiPosted in: Americans with Disabilities Act, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, Recent Decisions
One of HR’s biggest questions about disability accommodations: What conditions are covered under the ADA? Here’s some guidance from a recent court decision.
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
Tags: accommodation, diabetes, essential job functions, insulin
March 6th, 2009 at 9:17 am
I question the doctor who told the employee he could no longer do field work. My wife is a diabetic and has never had that kind of restriction. It may require being extra vigilant, but that happens to everyone as we get older.
An insulin pump is another solution, albeit an expensive one.
March 11th, 2009 at 10:05 am
I too would question the decision about why field work was not allowed. My father had diabetes for all of his adult life and worked in construction doing “field work” all the time. He gave himself insulin shots three or four times a day. Yes, it requires extra vigilence but is very doable.
March 11th, 2009 at 10:39 am
I believe the court based their decision on what the employee’s physician stated. Some diabetics are more “brittle” than others and their blood sugar levels swing wildly. I personally can see the danger of being on a construction site with blood sugar issues. I am diabetic, controlled most of the time, but when my sugar drops unexpectedly, I can suddenly faint. Not good if others are depending on your alertness!!
March 11th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
I agree with Sharon. My mother is a diabetic, she is required to take 2 shots of insulin as well as pill forms of insulin daily, she has her good & bad days; unfortunately, her condition is very unpredictable. Different people (their bodies) handle medical issues differently. There may be a person who can handle “field work” without an incident but another person may attempt “field work”, pass out, hit their head, and causes more medical issues, (workman’s comp.?) is it really worth it?
March 11th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
This, like any ADA case, should be based on the individual employee and his/her condition. It seems that the company was looking for a way to “retire” him and thought this was their best way to do it. I have clients who have diabetic employees who work in a wide range of positions that require travel and manual labor. To date, none of them have faced a situation where diabetic employees could not preform thier duties.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
I am a diabetic and some days I could do “field work” with no problems and other days my body is not as cooperative and I could not do this type of work. So, I go along with another comment on this site, it is different for different diabetics and if is even different for the same diabetic on different days.
March 11th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
I am a type II diabetic also and have been for about 15 years. I basically live a very normal life. Up until recently I would have questioned the doctor as well. But in the last three years I have found that I really have to be careful working in the yard or even excercizing in the heat. My blood sugar takes a nose dive which can lead to a coma and/or death. The good side to that is now I pay someone to do the hard stuff and I have a good excuse. It sounds to me like this Company didn’t have an HR person. I can’t imagine and HR professional considering a function performed once every 2 years an essential function.
March 11th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
I would ask for second opinion if this is that big of deal. I know a Diabetic can have good and bad days and take time off under fmla without a doctors note so maybe if he is having a bad day he can exercise his fmla rights vs. needing reasonable accomodations. Either way the company would be obligated to have a meaning exchange regarding what reasonable accomodations are needed.
March 11th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
With the ADAAA, I think at this point what the doctor says is almost irrelevant – they guy had a disability, he’s covered under the act.
From there, entering into an “interactive process”, is it a reasonable accomodation to exempt him from field work? Since it was pretty obviously not an essential function of the job (key to have your job descriptions up to date and more importantly – accurate), the requested accomodation was very reasonable and should have been granted.
This is what happens when mgt. & HR don’t focus on on the facts and let their opinions get in the way. Anybody on this list qualified to make a medical recomendation that would counter the employees MD? Nope, then move on and deal with what you can control.
Best to all.
March 12th, 2009 at 8:30 am
As an ADA Consultant for more than 18 years, I would have advised the employer to immediately enter into the reasonable accomodation dialogue with a 23 year employee. The elements of the “borrowed hand” included a number of tasks, including over nights and long work hours, all of which can have a significant impact on someone who is early in their diabetes treatment and already insulin dependent. More importantly, is being a “borrowed hand” an essential function of the job, and if so, how could he have been accomodated so that he could perform that essential function. The employer’s biggest mistake (as the court pointed out) was assuming that the employee’s stated disability was not covered under the ADA. These were costly assumptions.
March 12th, 2009 at 8:55 am
I disagree with the courts decesion, but had the company work with the individual instead of against, the court would not have to make the decsion.
I have been a Type 1 diabetic for 24 year (diagnosed at age 23). Although this condition has made major changes inmy life style, the work and travel as described in this article should not be outside the limits of the individual.
The Dr. may be concerned of related health issues (e.g. low sugars in the field, alone in the hotel room, etc). I personally have encoutered a few instances, where I had difficulty while traveling for my company. He definetley would need to be more regimented in his monitoringm but it could be done.