DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN THE

WORKPLACEBY

JACQUELINE WARRICK

LAWS THAT PROTECT THE DISABLED WORKER

• VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973

• AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990

• AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT AMENDMENT OF 2008

VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION ACTSECTION 503

• REQUIRES AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO HIRE AND PROMOTE DISABLED WORKERS, FOR CONTRACTORS WITH A CONTRACTOR OF $10,000 OR MORE.

• FOR CONTRACTS OF $50,000 OR MORE AND 50+ EMPLOYEES, AN ESTABLISHED AFFIRMATIVE PROGRAM AT EACH ESTABLISHMENT.

SECTION 504• PROHIBITS DISCRIMINATION OF

OTHERWISE QUALIFIED WORKERS WITH DISABILITIES, BY ANY PROGRAM OR ACTIVITY RECEIVING FEDERAL ASSISTANCE.

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

• Applied nationwide to include private, state and local

government employees

• Offered legal protection to employers

• The definition of disability is not limited to physical disabilities.

• Prohibits disparate treatment/impact.

AMERICAN WITH DISABILITIES ACT AMENDMENT ACT(ADAAA)

• DEFINED DISABILITIES THAT WERE NOT PREVIOUSLY ADDRESSED IN THE ADA

• DIRECTED A MORE BROAD INTERPRETATION OF THE ADA

• PROVIDED EXAMPLES OF MAJOR LIFE ACTIVITIES

• DEFINES WHAT QUALIFIES AS SUBSTANTIALLY LIMITED

EEOC V FORD MOTOR COMPANY

FACTS

MS. HARRIS WAS A RESALE BUYER FOR THE FORD MOTOR COMPANY.SHE SUFFERED FROM IRRITABLE BOWEL SYNDROME.SHE WAS TERMINATED IN JULY 2009.

ISSUES

EMPLOYEE EMPLOYER• HARRIS WAS A SUBPAR PERFORMER• SHE WAS OFFERED SEVERAL

ACCOMMODATIONS WHICH SHE EITHER FAILED TO FULFILL OR REFUSED.

• FILE A COMPLAINT STATING SHE WAS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BASED UPON HER DISABILITY

• ACCUSED HER EMPLOYER OF NOT MAKING ACCOMMODATIONS FOR HER DISABILITY

• ACCUSED HER EMPLOYER OF RETALIATION

RULESAMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

ANALYSIS

• HARRIS' POSITION REQUIRED A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF INTERACTION WITH STEEL BUYERS

• HARRIS REQUESTED TO WORK 4 DAYS A WEEK FROM HOME AND TELECOMMUTE

• FORD'S RESALE BUYER POSITION WAS ALLOWED TO TELECOMMUTE ONLY ONE DAY A WEEK

ANALYSIS

• HARRIS' PERFORMANCE DECLINED STEADILY OVER THE COURSE OF HER SIX YEAR TENURE

• SHE WAS CONTINUALLY ABSENT• CAME TO WORK LATE AND LEFT EARLY• DID NOT COMPLETE HER WORK ON TIME• PERFORMED AT THE BOTTOM 10% AMONG HER COWORKERS THE LAST

TWO YEARS AT THE COMPANY

ANALYSIS• THE COMPANY OFFERED TO LET HER ADJUST HER WORK SCHEDULE • SHE WAS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO TELECOMMUTE, WHICH SHE FAILED TO

DO ON THREE OCCASIONS• MEETINGS WERE HELD TO TRY TO RESOLVE THE ACCOMMODATION ISSUE AND

RAISE HER PERFORMANCE LEVEL• SHE REFUSED THE OFFERED ACCOMMODATIONS• SHE FAILED TO RAISE HER COMPLETION PERFORMANCE

CONCLUSION• HARRIS WAS FIRED BASED UPON HER LOW PERFORMANCE EVALUATION• FORD MOTOR CO.HAD POLICIES IN PLACE TO HELP MAKE REASONABLE

ACCOMMODATIONS FOR EMPLOYEES WITH DISABILITIES• HARRIS REFUSED TO ACCEPT THOSE ACCOMMODATIONS AND TO RAISE HER

PERFORMANCE AND WAS TERMINATED AS A RESULT• DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION COULD NOT BE SHOWN BECAUSE OF THE

REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS OFFERED AND THE POLICIES IN PLACE• HARRIS DID NOT QUALIFY AS A PROTECTED DISABLED EMPLOYEE BECAUSE

SHE COULD NOT PERFORM THE ESSENTIAL TASKS OF HER POSITION

REFERENCES

• BENNETT-ALEXANDER, D., & HARTMAN, L. P. (2015).EMPLOYMENT LAW FOR BUSINESS(8TH ED.) DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION PP 588-589, NEW YORK, NY: MCGRAW-HILL.

• EEOC V FORD MOTORCOMPANY,12-1284,(6TH CIR. WASHINGTON,D.C. 2015)