Question.1154 - Title I of the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112(a), requires employers to provide reasonable accommodation to otherwise qualified persons with a disability to enable them to work. The federal government has a similar requirement under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794. A "reasonable" accommodation a determination to be made on the facts by the employer on a case-by-case basis. Ultimately, the decision an employer makes could be reviewed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (or an equivalent state agency) or a court if the employer is sued for discrimination. DISCUSSION PROMPT: CASE STUDY (HYPOTHETHICAL) Jordan, a fully qualified specialized registered nurse, is deaf. Jordan relies upon an American Sign Language (ASL) interpreter to communicate with hearing individuals in the workplace. Jordan applied for a job with Carmel Receiving and Trauma Center ("CRTC"), a large medical center that, with all its hubs and subsidiaries, grosses $1.3 billion annually. Net profits are in the millions. Jordan received a job offer, conditioned upon a health screening and clearance by CRTC's occupational health department. Jordan was in fact cleared. Jordan notified CRTC of the need for an ASL interpreter as an accommodation for Jordan's hearing impairment. The annual salary, including benefits, for Jordan's position was approximately $75,000. Upon investigation, CRTC calculated that the annual cost to CRTC for the ASL interpreter accommodation would be an additional $100,000 annually; there was the need for a full time interpreter for Jordan, plus several situations where two ASL interpreters would be required. In considering Jordan's request for accommodation, CRTC's hiring supervisor wrote in an email to her boss that the department's annual budget allocation could not absorb the "excessive cost of the additional personnel" of ASL qualified interpreters "for this one nurse." Based on the cost of the accommodation, CRTC immediately determined that the additional salary and overhead for the interpreters would be an "undue hardship," making the accommodation unreasonable. Relying on the undue hardship defense, CRTC did not hire Jordan. Did CRTC violate ADA? DISCUSS: 1. Was CRTC within its legal rights under ADA to refuse the accommodation and thus not hire Jordan on the basis of undue hardship? In considering this case, you should review: (a) what is considered a "reasonable" accommodation under ADA including sample accommodations listed by ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12111(9) (2018)) and the EEOC (www.eeoc.gov); and (c) the definition of "undue hardship" and standard an employer has to meet to establish "undue hardship" (42 U.S.C. § 12111(10)(a) (2018)); and (d) case law - research what the courts consider in determining if there is undue hardship justifying not providing an accommodation 2. Are there ethical considerations involved in this case beyond what is required by the "letter of the law" and if so what are they?
Answer Below:
Firstly, in terms of considering the reasonable accommodation under ADA, any modification to the nature of the job environment in order to meet the requirements of qualified disabled individuals to perform the basic essentials operations, such as making it more accessible, restructuring the nature of the job including work schedules, additional devices help their functionalities (Colker, 2021). In accordance with the definition of undue hardship, the ADA defines it as a significant expense incurred by an employer when making internal amendments; certain factors discussed related to the nature of working conditions, cost of accommodation, financial resources, and type of operations covered by the entity. According to (b)5.b if there are no reasonable accommodations to the physical/mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with disability, be it employee or applicant, that is unless covered by entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would likely impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business; in terms of case laws which suggests that employers should thoroughly evaluate the specific circumstances of each case in order to establish undue hardship, the court tends to consider nature of working operations, and the overall financial impact in terms of accommodation, and in scenario additional costs are incurred causing substantial burden, it is deemed an undue hardship (Gibbs, 2023). Considering the case being discussed, the determination of undue hardship based solely on the additional cost of providing an ASL interpreter for Jordan may not be sufficient; rather, the employer is required to consider the overall financial resources of the medical center, streamline the job role, and alternative ways to reduce the cost (Guta, 2022). Secondly, in terms of ethical considerations, that is beyond the scope of legal obligation since it questions fairness, inclusivity, upholding the fundamental rights of all, and promotion of diversity in the workplace. ADA dwells around certain legal frameworks like fair treatment in terms of providing equal opportunity; however, if the refusal is solely based on the cost without exploring alternatives, it may be perceived as unfair treatment (Gibbs, 2023). Secondly, ethical considerations involve fostering an inclusive work environment. Providing accommodations for individuals with disabilities contributes to diversity and inclusion, which can enhance the overall workplace culture. Also employers who value ethical standards as one of their objectives, by accommodating employees with disabilities, companies contribute to a diverse workforce that brings different perspectives and talents. While the ADA sets a legal standard, ethical considerations prompt employers to go beyond mere compliance. In this case, ethical practices would involve a thorough evaluation of alternatives before deeming an accommodation an undue hardship. Fairness, inclusivity, and promoting diversity should be integral to an organization's ethical approach to managing employees with disabilities. References Colker, R. (2021). The Americans with Disabilities Act's Unreasonable Focus on the Individual. U. Pa. L. Rev., 170, 1813. Gibbs, C. L. (2023). New York US District Court Determines Gender Dysphoria Is Not Excluded from Protection Under the Americans with Disabilities Act. LGBT Law Notes, 12-13. Guta, E. (2022). Clicks, Bricks, and Politics: Website Accessibility Under Title II and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mercer Law Review, 73(2), 11.More Articles From Business Law
.ico)
.ico)
.ico)
.ico)
