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.

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.

Here’s what happened:

The employee left work early one day and began drinking. That night, he was arrested for threatening his wife with a gun.

When he returned to work, the company told him — based on a doctor’s recommendation — that he’d have to enter rehab if he wanted to keep his job. He refused the treatment, so he was fired.

He sued, claiming the employer “regarded him as disabled” and let him go in violation of the ADA.

Who won the case? The company.

As the court ruled, the ADA only protects substance abusers who are being treated for their addictions. Also, without medical assistance, the man was clearly a threat to himself and co-workers.

Therefore, requiring treatment as condition of continued employment was a perfectly reasonable step for the company to take.

Cite: Kozisek v. County of Seward, Nebraska

Here’s what happened:

A woman applied for a job with the State Department and was tentatively offered a job, pending a successful medical examination.

The problem: She was a cancer survivor, and despite repeated statements from her doctor that she was perfectly fit for the job with no limitations at all, the agency decided to take back the offer.

She sued under the Rehabilitation Act (the ADA equivalent for government workers). The agency’s defense: The woman wasn’t disabled. As her doctor said, the cancer was in full remission and no longer affected her life or ability to work. In her own words, she was “fit as a fiddle.”

But she won the case anyway. Why? The court ruled she’d been discriminated against because she had a “record of” a disability — in other words, the only reason the company refused to hire her was because she used to be disabled.

It’s an ADA provision that doesn’t appear in a lot of cases. But as this ruling shows, it’s one companies still need to watch out for.

Cite: Adams v. Rice

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

The facts:

To meet production demands, the company required all employees to work overtime. No exceptions were ever made, and employees all worked roughly the same number of OT hours. However, one employee was barred by her doctor from working OT due to a medical condition. The company terminated her, and she sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The employer said:

Working the required number of hours was an essential job function. Therefore, she had no standing to sue.

Who won the case?

Answer: The employer.

Why: As the judge said, “An employer’s mandatory overtime requirement has been recognized as an essential job function” — just like other attendance requirements that have a legitimate business purpose.

The company also lacked the option of moving her to a different position — all jobs she was qualified for required the same hours.

One big key to victory in this case: consistency. By showing that all employees were held to the same rules with no exceptions, the company was able to show that working overtime really was an essential function of the woman’s job.

Cite: Tjernagel v. Gates Corp.