Comments on: Diabetic can sue under ADA

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:55:08 +0000

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.

By: Joan

Joan — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:30:04 +0000

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.

By: John

John — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 20:26:50 +0000

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.

By: question

question — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 20:13:57 +0000

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.

By: Cal

Cal — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 20:04:32 +0000

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.

By: patty

patty — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:41:33 +0000

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.

By: Stewart

Stewart — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:01:16 +0000

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.

By: Bonnie

Bonnie — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:49:54 +0000

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?

By: Sharon

Sharon — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:39:25 +0000

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!!

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:05:05 +0000

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.