• The HR Specialist - Print Newsletter
  • HR Specialist: Employment Law
  • The HR Weekly

ADA

Does the ADA allow us to look into dangers posed by employee’s recurring medical crises?

08/02/2010
Q. About once a month, one of our employees faints, is taken to the hospital by ambulance and is released to return to work—without restrictions. These recurring incidents are affecting our productivity, and we’re worried about the employee’s health. The employee has claimed the episodes are induced by workplace stress. What should we do?

What’s our legal defense? Working here would be dangerous for ill applicant

08/02/2010
Q. When a job applicant took a post-offer physical, he learned he has hepatitis C. The position he is seeking at our oil refinery would expose him to chemicals that could be harmful to his liver. If we refuse to hire him and he alleges disability discrimination, will we be able to utilize the “direct threat” defense?

ADA: ‘Toxic’ work site (plus toxic boss) doesn’t necessarily create disability

08/02/2010

It happens. Some working relationships between bosses and their direct reports are so toxic that employees suffer psychological problems. Sometimes the tension is so bad that employees believe they’re disabled and therefore entitled to transfer to another job under another supervisor. That isn’t the case.

Is worker fit for duty? Limit medical inquiries to essential functions

08/02/2010

You aren’t allowed to delve into an employee’s medical history or disabilities when the employee wants to keep the information private—unless you can show a clear job-related reason for doing so. To qualify as job-related, your inquiry must be narrowly tailored to assess whether the employee is capable of performing the essential functions of the job. Broad questions often run afoul of the law.

Unsure about your accommodations obligations? Find out fast–or risk personal liability

07/27/2010
The Pennsylvania Human Rights Act is the commonwealth’s companion to federal employment laws such as the ADA and Title VII. The PHRA goes beyond most federal laws because it authorizes personal liability for those who “aid and abet” an act of discrimination. And as one recent case shows, aiding and abetting can include making a serious mistake about a reasonable accommodation request.

He said he didn’t need ADA help? Then he can’t sue for it

07/27/2010

Some disabled individuals may fear that prospective employers won’t hire them if they request an accommodation. They may even try to reassure employers they’re perfectly capable of doing the job without any help. Take them at their word. They can’t later claim they didn’t get an accommodation.

Keep health costs out of the equation when considering hiring and firing

07/27/2010
Before you even consider firing (or refusing to hire) someone because they might jack up your health insurance costs, count your dollars, not your pennies. You may be staring down a lawsuit that could dwarf whatever premium costs you hoped to avoid.

First suggestion needn’t be last word: You’re free to choose reasonable accommodation

07/23/2010

When an employee asks for a reasonable ADA accommodation for a disability, you don’t have to accept her first suggestion. You are under no obligation to provide the employee’s preferred accommodation if you have another one that’s also reasonable.

Beware bias claims when accommodations differ

07/23/2010
Overlapping issues often make it even harder for HR pros to deal with difficult situations. For example, addressing the needs of two disabled employees can turn into a discrimination lawsuit if they belong to different protected classes and you come up with different accommodations.

HIV case shines spotlight on ADAAA’s broader disability definition

07/09/2010
A recent court case sheds light on whether HIV is a disability under the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. In Horgan v. Simmons, the court held that an HIV-positive man who was terminated after disclosing his medical condition to his supervisor could pursue an employment discrimination claim under the ADA. This case reflects the trend toward broader protection under the ADA.