EEOC Issues Policy Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship under the ADA

Employee Relations Law Journal

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 119-144

  Jenero, Kenneth A ^a   Ketay, Staci L ^a  

^a Labor and Employment Rel Department

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0037764220     PISSN: 00988898     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. 29 C.F.R. Part 1630 (1998).
2. 29 C.F.R. Part 1630, Appendix (1998).
3. EEOC Technical Assistance Manual on the Employment Provisions (Title I) of the Americans with Disabilities Act (1992).
4. See, e.g., Enforcement Guidance: Preemployment Disability-Related Questions and Medical Examinations, (1995); Enforcement Guidance: The Americans with Disabilities Act and Psychiatric Disabilities, (1997).
5. See, e.g., Enforcement Guidance: Preemployment Disability-Related Questions and Medical Examinations, (1995); Enforcement Guidance: The Americans with Disabilities Act and Psychiatric Disabilities, (1997).
6. See, e.g., Carr v. Reno, 23 F.3d 525, 530 (D.C. Cir. 1994); Jackson v. Department of Veterans Admin., 22 F.3d 277, 278-79 (11th Cir. 1994).
7. See, e.g., Monette v. Electronic Data Sys. Corp., 90 F.3d 1173, 1184 n. 10 (6th Cir. 1996); Vande Zande v. Wisconsin Dep't of Admin., 44 F.3d 538, 543 (7th Cir. 1995).
8. See, e.g., Matthews (cited on p. 131).
9. See, e.g., Schmidt v. Methodist Hosp. of Indiana, Inc., 89 F.3d 342, 345 (7th Cir. 1996); Myers v. Hose, 50 F.3d 278, 283 (4th Cir. 1995); Pangalos v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 5 AD Cas. (BNA) 1825, 1826 (E.D. Pa. 1996).
10. See, e.g., Emrick v. Libbey-Owens-Ford Co., 875 F. Supp. 393, 398 (E.D. Tex. 1995).
11. See, e.g., Daugherty v. City of El Paso, 56 F.3d 695, 700 (5th Cir. 1995).
12. See, e.g., Myers(cited in note 8); Hudson v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., 87 F.3d 1167, 1169 (10th Cir. 1996); McDonald v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Dep't of Transp., 62 F.3d 92, 97 (3d Cir. 1995); Monette (cited in note 6).
13. See, e.g., Eckles v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 94 F.3d 1041, 1048 (7th Cir. 1996); Kralik v. Durbin, 130 F.3d 76, 83 (3d Cir. 1007).
14. 42 U.S.C. 12101, et seq.
15. 29 C.F.R. 1630.2(o).
16. 29 C.F.R. 1630.2(o).
17. See cases cited in note 6 above.
18. 42 U.S.C. 12111(10)(A); 29 C.F.R. 1630.2(p)(1).
19. Conversely, evidence that the employer engaged expeditiously in the interactive process may demonstrate a "good faith" effort that can protect an employer from having to pay punitive and certain compensatory damages. 42 U.S.C. 1981a(a)(3).
20. See cite at note 2 above.
21. See materials cited in notes 1-4 above.
22. See cases cited in note 11 above. In those cases, the courts typically hold that the term "reasonable accommodation" refers to accommodations which presently, or in the near future, enable the employee to perform the essential functions of his or her job.
23. See cases cited in note 5 above.
24. See cases cited in note 8 above.
25. See, e.g., Daugherty (cited in note 10).
26. See case cited in note 9 above.
27. The Guidance provides an example in which an employee with major depression often is late for work because of medication side effects that make him extremely groggy in the morning. His scheduled hours are 9:00 A.M. to 5:30 P.M., but he arrives at 9:00, 9:30, 10:00, or even 10:30 on any given day. When the employer disciplines the employee for his tardiness and warns him that continued failure to arrive promptly over the next 30 days will result in termination of employment, the employee explains that he has been late because of his disability and needs to work on a later schedule. The Guidance notes that the employer may discipline the employee because he violated a conduct standard addressing tardiness that is job-related and consistent with business necessity. However, the employer must consider reasonable accommodation, barring undue hardship, to enable the employee to meet the standard in the future. This might include changing the employee's schedule so that he is not required to report for work until 10:30.
28. The Guidance notes that an employer may respond to coworkers' questions about why a fellow employee is receiving what is perceived as "different" or "special" treatment by emphasizing its policy of assisting any employee who encounters difficulties in the workplace; noting that many such difficulties are personal in nature; and explaining that it is the employer's policy to respect employee privacy. It also suggests that employers provide their employees with general information about various laws that require employers to meet certain employee needs (for example, the ADA and the FMLA) and to protect an employee's privacy, in order to head-off difficult questions about the treatment of individual employees.
29. See cases cited in note 6 above.
30. See cases cited in note 12 above.