Lexology.com
Dorsey & Whitney LLP
Rebecca Girn USA
August 11 2010
One of our manufacturing employees, call him Jim, was fairly seriously injured in an accident on the production floor. Jim applied for workers’ compensation and was examined by a doctor. The doctor let us know in his opinion, Jim would no longer be able to perform his job, since it required a significant amount of lifting and bending that he was simply no longer physically capable of doing. Rather than taking immediate action based on the doctor’s opinion, we waited. We thought maybe his condition would improve – Jim was a good employee, and we just didn’t want to do anything too hasty.
Meanwhile, we knew Jim was aware of the doctor’s report that he could not return to his job, but he didn’t get in touch with us to contradict it or to tell us he did want to try to return to work if we could find a way to have him do it. Admittedly, we did not try to contact him either. The months passed, and he never did get in touch with us or communicate that he wanted to return. Finally, 8 months later, we decided it was time to terminate him, since he had shown no signs of wanting to come back to work, even if he could. We sent him a letter enclosing the doctor’s report and explaining that we were forced to terminate employment since he could not perform his job, and there was no other job available.
Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a6fa14cc-bfb3-4a11-b71d-560e97d55af3&utm_source=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Lexology%20subscriber%20daily%20feed&utm_content=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed%202010-08-26&utm_term=
Showing posts with label Interactive process. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Interactive process. Show all posts
Monday, August 30, 2010
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Failure to engage in interactive process immaterial if accommodation not possible
Lexology
Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
Kevin B Leblang and Robert N Holtzman
USA March 10 2010
A recent decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit clarifies the extent of an employer's obligation under the Americans with Disabilities Act to engage in an interactive process with an employee to identify a reasonable accommodation. Importantly, the court held that an employer's failure to engage in an interactive process does not form the basis of a claim under the act in the absence of evidence that an accommodation was possible which would have permitted the employee to perform the essential functions of the job.
In McBride v BIC Consumer Products Manufacturing Co(1) McBride rejected an accommodation that BIC Consumer Products Manufacturing Co offered her on her return from medical leave. The parties did not discuss any additional potential accommodations and, notably, McBride never proposed any alternative accommodation. Although there were several vacant positions at BIC around the time of McBride's termination, she failed to demonstrate that she was qualified for any of the available positions. At the expiration of McBride's medical leave, BIC terminated her employment.
McBride argued that she should have been excused from having to provide evidence of an accommodation that would have permitted her to perform the essential functions of her position because BIC supposedly refused to engage in an interactive process concerning possible accommodations – an argument squarely rejected by the court. Rather, the court found that the act does not impose liability on an employer for failure to engage in an interactive process where no accommodation is in fact possible.
Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a435ff3c-fa88-4389-8f23-532677517d06&utm_source=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Lexology%20subscriber%20daily%20feed&utm_content=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed%202010-05-05&utm_term=
Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
Kevin B Leblang and Robert N Holtzman
USA March 10 2010
A recent decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit clarifies the extent of an employer's obligation under the Americans with Disabilities Act to engage in an interactive process with an employee to identify a reasonable accommodation. Importantly, the court held that an employer's failure to engage in an interactive process does not form the basis of a claim under the act in the absence of evidence that an accommodation was possible which would have permitted the employee to perform the essential functions of the job.
In McBride v BIC Consumer Products Manufacturing Co(1) McBride rejected an accommodation that BIC Consumer Products Manufacturing Co offered her on her return from medical leave. The parties did not discuss any additional potential accommodations and, notably, McBride never proposed any alternative accommodation. Although there were several vacant positions at BIC around the time of McBride's termination, she failed to demonstrate that she was qualified for any of the available positions. At the expiration of McBride's medical leave, BIC terminated her employment.
McBride argued that she should have been excused from having to provide evidence of an accommodation that would have permitted her to perform the essential functions of her position because BIC supposedly refused to engage in an interactive process concerning possible accommodations – an argument squarely rejected by the court. Rather, the court found that the act does not impose liability on an employer for failure to engage in an interactive process where no accommodation is in fact possible.
Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a435ff3c-fa88-4389-8f23-532677517d06&utm_source=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Lexology%20subscriber%20daily%20feed&utm_content=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed%202010-05-05&utm_term=
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
A lesson on the ADA interactive process
Lexology
Fox Rothschild LLP
Timothy E. Gilsbach USA
February 22 2010
A recent case out of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals is instructive in the need to engage in the interactive process under the ADA when an employee claims that a disability will impact his or her ability to do the job.
In the case of Lowe v. Independent School District No. 1 of Logan County, Oklahoma, an employee had a post-polio condition and was advised by her doctor to avoid standing and walking for long periods of time. The employee was employed as a counselor and required no accommodations for her disability. However, she was re-assigned to a position as a classroom teacher and shared concerns with her employer that she may require accommodations for this new position. The employee was told that no accommodations would be made and she quite her job.
The Court found that this failure to engage in any interactive process on the part of the School District demonstrated that the employee may have violated the ADA by failing to make a good faith effort to determine if reasonable accommodations could be made to allow the employee to perform the job.
Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=bb26295a-3065-42d7-afac-3479d31b7aa1&utm_source=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Lexology%20subscriber%20daily%20feed&utm_content=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed%202010-03-17&utm_term=
Fox Rothschild LLP
Timothy E. Gilsbach USA
February 22 2010
A recent case out of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals is instructive in the need to engage in the interactive process under the ADA when an employee claims that a disability will impact his or her ability to do the job.
In the case of Lowe v. Independent School District No. 1 of Logan County, Oklahoma, an employee had a post-polio condition and was advised by her doctor to avoid standing and walking for long periods of time. The employee was employed as a counselor and required no accommodations for her disability. However, she was re-assigned to a position as a classroom teacher and shared concerns with her employer that she may require accommodations for this new position. The employee was told that no accommodations would be made and she quite her job.
The Court found that this failure to engage in any interactive process on the part of the School District demonstrated that the employee may have violated the ADA by failing to make a good faith effort to determine if reasonable accommodations could be made to allow the employee to perform the job.
Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=bb26295a-3065-42d7-afac-3479d31b7aa1&utm_source=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Lexology%20subscriber%20daily%20feed&utm_content=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed%202010-03-17&utm_term=
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)