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

The most common problem: attendance. Some courts have ruled that disabled workers should be allowed to take time off or arrive late, unless the company can prove punctuality is an essential function of the person’s job.

But does that mean those employees are free to ditch work whenever they want without consequences? No, it doesn’t, according to a recent court ruling:

An employee was left with a chronic elbow problem after an on-the-job injury. The company allowed her to take days off for treatment or flare-ups, as long as she followed the company’s policy and called her manager before the start of her shift.

At one point, she didn’t show up for three consecutive days — without calling. The company fired her, and she sued, claiming she should’ve been exempt from the policy.

The judge threw out the case. The woman offered no reason why she wasn’t able to call in before the absences. The company accommodated her medical condition by allowing her extra time off — but that didn’t mean it had to let her take leave without notification.

Cite: Bones v. Honeywell International, Inc.

According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, not much.

The EEOC recently sued retail chain Dillard’s over the company’s sick leave policy.

Under the policy, employees had to hand in a doctor’s note stating the specific nature of an illness in order to take authorized sick leave.

An employee complained that the policy invaded her privacy and was fired after she took sick days without turning in the note. She filed a claim with the EEOC, which is now suing the company.

The agency claims that asking for specific medical information before approving absences violates employees’ rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The case is still pending. We’ll keep you posted on how it turns out.

Cite: EEOC v. Dillard’s

Many companies run into trouble with the Americans with Disabilities Act when they ask job applicants and new employees for medical information. Here are six keys to staying out of court:

• Give the tests to all new hires for similarly situated positions
• Only ask for a physical after a job offer has been made
• In your written offers, mention they are contingent on successful completion of a medical exam
• Make sure the results are confidential
• Only test to make sure the employees can perform the essential functions of the job, and
• Put those requirements in your job description so applicants are aware of them beforehand.

Read the facts of this real-life case and decide: Who won?

The facts:

An employee was caught sleeping on the job, so he was fired. He sued, claiming he had a medical condition that required him to take quick breaks to “rest his eyes.”

The employer said:

The worker broke policy by taking an unauthorized break in order to nap. Also, he had never talked to HR about getting accommodated for his illness or turned in a doctor’s note saying he needed an accommodation.

Who won the case?

Answer: The employer.

Why? The company was justified in firing the man for sleeping on the job and taking an unauthorized break.

If he had gone through the proper channels to ask for an accommodation, things might have been different. But he didn’t, so the company was off the hook for the termination.

Cite: McNary v. Schreiber Foods, Inc.

Read the facts of this real-life case and decide: Who won?

The facts:

A cashier was required to stand at her register for most of her shift. However, due to a medical condition, she had trouble standing for more than 15 minutes at a time. Some supervisors let her use a stool — but others asked her not to after co-workers complained that she was getting preferential treatment. Eventually, she brought in a doctor’s note saying she could work as long as she was allowed to sit. Still, the manager on duty told her to stand, saying he had to talk to his boss first. The employee left the store and never returned.

The employer said:

The employee sued the company, claiming it violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to accommodate her disability. But according to the company, she quit her job voluntarily before it had a chance to accommodate her.

Who won the case?

Answer: The employee.

Why: The court ruled the woman was “constructively discharged.” When some of her supervisors wouldn’t let her use the stool — even after she brought in the doctor’s note — she had no choice but to quit.

Letting one employee sit on a stool wouldn’t have posed any hardship, even if some of her co-workers complained about unfair treatment. The company’s managers should’ve been trained on how to deal with disabilities in the workplace and recognize employees who need an accommodation.

Cite: Talley v. Family Dollar Stores of Ohio, Inc.

A firefighter was diagnosed with anxiety and given a prescription for a few types of medication. His doctor sent a letter to the fire department, saying the man could continue his current workload, without any restrictions or problems due to side effects.

However, the department had concerns about his ability to perform certain duties, especially driving the fire truck, and would not let him return to work. He sued, claiming disability discrimination.

The ruling: The employee was “regarded as disabled” and fired because of perceived — but not actual — limitations on his ability to work.

The company failed to get the case thrown out and got hit with a $360,000 verdict when the case went to trial.

Cite: Haynes v. City of Montgomery, Ala.

In one recent case, an employee with bipolar disorder sued his company after he was fired. The condition made him “irrational, delusional, and unable to communicate effectively.” When he had to be hospitalized, the company decided he could no longer do his job.

He sued, claiming the termination violated the ADA. The court agreed.

First, the court determined the employee was protected by the ADA. The bipolar disorder substantially limited several of his major life functions — specifically, the life activities of “thinking, communicating, interacting with others and caring for himself.”

Then, the court ruled that he could have performed his job with a reasonable accommodation — time off to get treated. Other courts have ruled that leaves of absence are considered reasonable accommodations for employees with psychological disabilities.

The case went before a jury, which awarded the employee a $91,000 payout.

Cite: E.E.O.C. v. Voss Elec. Co. d/b/a Voss Lighting

Congress recently approved a proposal to significantly overhaul the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The ADA Amendments Act will now reach the president’s desk. Earlier this week, the White House released a statement praising the bill and announcing that the president looks forward to signing it.

The changes, effective January 1, 2009:

• More “major life activities” — The bill gives a hefty list of examples of what’s considered a major life activity, which would expand the definition beyond what most courts have ruled. (The list of examples: “caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating and working.”)
• No mitigating measures — The amendments would also reverse a Supreme Court decision that allows the consideration of “mitigating measures” — i.e., medicine or equipment that lessens an impairment — when deciding whether an employee is disabled.
• Protection for conditions in remission — If a condition is in remission, the employee will still be ADA-protected if the condition would qualify as a disability when active.

For more on the ADAAA, go here.