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

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

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.

The facts:

An employee used up her 12 weeks of FMLA leave. When she got back, she still couldn’t work full time, so she asked to be put on a part-time schedule. The company said no, she could only get her full-time job back. She sued, claiming she was owed a new schedule as an “accommodation” under FMLA.

The employer said:

FMLA doesn’t say anything about accommodating employees. The Americans with Disabilities Act does, but the woman’s condition didn’t meet the ADA’s definition of a disability. Therefore, there was no obligation to let her work part time.

Who won the case?

Answer: The employer.

Why: The court agreed that once the woman used her 12 weeks of leave, the company didn’t have to accommodate her illness.

In some cases, employees might have conditions that make them eligible for FMLA leave and qualify as protected disabilities. But courts have agreed that meeting the definition under one law doesn’t automatically mean an employee’s protected by the other.

Cite: Baker v. Hunter Douglas Inc.