05/15/2008
Diabetes is not automatically a disability under the ADA. But if an employee can prove her diabetes substantially limits at least one of her major life activities, such as eating, then the employee is legally disabled and protected by the ADA ...
|
05/15/2008
In December, the EEOC issued new guidance on employment tests and selection procedures under three laws: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The key to complying is to make sure each employment test is directly job-related and focuses on business necessity ...
|
05/14/2008
Being qualified for a job doesn’t mean the person can do it well. And the inability to really execute an essential job function can warrant dismissal, even if the employee claims a disability. Take, for example, a newly hired professor who turns out to have psychological problems that prevent her from teaching class ...
|
05/13/2008
Employees who have disabilities sometimes pose special challenges. Accommodating their work restrictions requires diligence and flexibility. That doesn’t mean, however, that you should ignore declining performance ...
|
05/12/2008
Under the ADA, employers must engage disabled employees in interactive discussions about how to reasonably accommodate their disabilities. But sometimes, an employee’s condition may take a rapid turn for the worse. How fast you act may mean the difference in winning or losing a later ADA reasonable accommodations case ...
|
05/07/2008
In safety-conscious environments—such as in the medical and food industries—employees who become ill often face questions about their health from co-workers and associates. That’s only natural. But sometimes, inquiries about an employee’s illness are simply off-limits ...
|
05/06/2008
The ADA requires an employer that has reason to believe an employee wants an accommodation to begin an interactive accommodations process. Ignoring an accommodation request is dangerous. Instead, set up a process that logs all requests and puts the matter on the fast track to resolution ...
|
05/01/2008
The ADA protects only truly disabled employees from discrimination. It isn’t enough that someone has been diagnosed with a medical condition—even a serious-sounding one like diabetes or a hepatitis infection. Each ADA case is judged on how the illness affects the individual ...
|
04/29/2008
The dangers of smoking are well documented: heart disease and cancer, shorter life expectancy, higher health care expenses. Now add another risk: As workers in Indiana just found out, smoking could get you fired. Was their employer justified in taking action, or did it step into a legal quagmire?
|
04/25/2008
Some jobs are more dangerous than others if employees can’t perform them safely. For those types of positions, you can require periodic physical exams and suspend employees found to have physical problems that could increase the likelihood of an accident. If you do so, you don’t have to worry that you’ll violate the ADA ...
|
04/18/2008
California law and the ADA protect just about anyone who “associates” with a disabled person from discrimination. It doesn’t have to be a child, spouse or blood relative. The California Fair Employment and Housing Act and the Unruh Act both protect those who count disabled persons as friends ...
|
04/17/2008
Do some of your employees’ spouses or children have serious (and expensive) health troubles? It may be tempting to offer suggestions about less costly treatments—or even to send that employee packing. But don’t do it. As this new ruling shows, it’s illegal to discriminate against employees based on their relationship with a disabled person ...
|
04/17/2008
Q. We employ fewer than 50 employees. What’s our obligation under the FMLA or the ADA to bring back an employee who has missed lots of work? Since she had an Aflac policy, we suggested the time off. We never asked her to provide a medical excuse. Now we’re downsizing and she wants to return. We want to lay her off. Can we? — C.F., Tennessee ...
|
04/14/2008
It takes just one unkind comment about an employee’s alleged disability to send an ADA case to trial. What’s more, even if the employee couldn’t otherwise prove she’s disabled, a malicious comment may be enough to convince the court that the employer regarded the employee as disabled. That’s an ADA violation all by itself ...
|
04/10/2008
Q. We have a two-story building with production operations on the first floor and administrative offices on both the first and second floors. There is no elevator in the building. An office employee who works in a department on the second floor has been off work for a back injury. Now he wants to return to work but cannot climb the stairs. Do we have to reassign the employee to the first floor? There is no available space there, and the employee’s work duties are on the second floor ...
|