When medical issues affect your work life it is natural to want to keep your health information as private as possible. Often, employers will request that the individual sign an incredibly broad release that would grant them access to basically all of an individual’s health information which is far beyond what the law requires. However, when deciding what information to share with your employer, bear in mind that there are some minimum standards of disclosure that must be met in order to claim protection under federal law. This post will examine two cases, one under the Family Medical Leave Act and one under the Americans with Disabilities Act, where an individual shared information but the courts decided it wasn’t enough. Fortunately, in most situations there is a balance that can be achieved between protecting your information and protecting your job. Continue reading
Tag Archives: Accommodation
When an individual is suffering from a disability, as defined in the American’s with Disabilities Act, their employer is required to work with them to find a reasonable accommodation that would allow them to complete all of the “essential duties” of their job. If the individual cannot complete all of the essential duties then they could be terminated even though they have a disability. Therefore, determining what qualifies as “essential” is a crucial step in the accommodation process.
While courts will generally look to a number of sources to determine what duties are essential to any given job (job descriptions, time sheets, etc.), there are some aspects of work that are nearly always considered to be essential. Attendance at work is one of these aspects that courts will almost always accept as being “essential” without much further analysis. However, a recent decision from a federal court in Indiana shows that courts may be willing to analyze how essential attendance is on a case-by-case basis. See E.E.O.C. v. AT&T Co., Case No. 1:12-cv-00402-TWP-DKL (S.D. Ind., Nov. 20, 2013). This case could be useful for anyone whose disability affects their ability to routinely attend work. Continue reading
Most of the people that I work with are aware that the American’s with Disabilities Act (ADA) allows employees to request modifications to their employment so that they an continue to work. However, often they are less clear on what sort of modifications they can request and what work responsibilities they must still be able to complete. A trio of recent cases demonstrate why it is important to make your request for accommodations as broad and all-encompassing as possible… Continue reading
Individuals with mental disorders face unique difficulties when it comes to seeking the protections and benefits of the American’s with Disabilities Act (ADA). The definition of “disability” under the ADA explicitly includes “mental impairments” that substantially limit one or more major life activities but it can be much harder for someone suffering from a mental illness to demonstrate such a limitation. If you add in employer skepticism and the general cultural stigma in relation to mental illness, you begin to see the additional challenges confronting individuals with mental disabilities. However, a recent case from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals provides a good example of what protections these individuals can receive to protect their employment. See McMillan v. City of New York, 711 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2013).
Hit the jump for all the details… Continue reading
The Americans with Disabilities Act requires employers to provide employees with reasonable accommodations that allow the employees to complete the essential functions of their job so long as the accommodation does not create an undue hardship on the employer. Determining what sorts of accommodations might work for an individual is supposed to occur through an “interactive process” of dialogue between the employee and employer, with each side proposing potential adjustments and both sides commenting in an attempt to find a solution. A recent case from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals shows just how important that dialogue is. See Keith v. County of Oakland, No. 11-2276 (6th Cir. Jan. 10, 2012).
Analysis of this intriguing case (spoiler alert – it is about a deaf individual who wants to be a lifeguard), after the jump… Continue reading