Você está na página 1de 7

COVER SHEET

Anonymous Number Exercise Number Writing Section Writing Faculty

1007 Four Six Temm

DECLARATION OF COMPLIANCE Please fill in the number of words in this exercise in the blank below. Placement of your anonymous number on this declaration certifies that you have checked the accuracy of the information you have provided. IGNORANCE OR MISUNDERSTANDING (OF COMPUTERS OR OTHERWISE) IS NO EXCUSE. IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE YOUR ASSIGNMENT COMPLIES WITH THE LOCAL RULES OF COURT OF THE UMKC LEGAL WRITING PROGRAM, AND FAILURE TO DO SO WILL BE VIEWED AS RECKLESSNESS UNDER THE HONOR CODE. My computer has done a word count and there are ______ words in the writing exercise I am submitting. By submitting this writing exercise, I certify to the accuracy of the word count. Anonymous Number 1007

DISCUSSION Holden might recover for workplace discrimination. She must show that her employer failed to accommodate her known disability. Specifically, Holden must demonstrate that (1) she is a qualified individual with a disability, (2) employer knew of the disability, and (3) employer neglected to reasonably accommodate her disability. EEOC v. Sears, 417 F.3d 789, 797 (7th Cir. 2005). No argument exists whether Holden is a qualified individual with a disability, only whether her employer was aware of her disability, and failed to give reasonable accommodations. I. Awareness of the Disability is Required The employee has the primary duty of notifying the employer of the disability, and a desired accommodation. Id. (quoting Beck, 75 F.3d at 1134). If [the situation] appears that the employee may need an accommodation, but doesnt know how to ask for [one], then employer must try to help as much as possible. Id. If neither party fully understands how to reasonably accommodate, then employer must seek clarification, and obtain more information. Id. However, if there is missing information that only one party can provide, then failure to provide that information may redirect liability. Beck v. Univ. of Wisc. Bd. Of Regents, 75 F.3d 1130, 1135 (7th Cir. 1996) (holding that information necessary to give employer proper knowledge of reasonable accommodation, could have only been provided by plaintiff, therefore defendant was not liable). Once employer is aware, employer and employee must engage in a flexible, interactive process to establish an appropriate accommodation. Beck, 75 F.3d at 1135. The party not participating in a good
2

faith interactive process assumes liability. Id. Courts should attempt to isolate the cause of the breakdown and [] assign responsibility.Id. Holden made her employer aware of her disability, and a reasonable accommodation. She spoke directly to Chartwell about her disability and requested a reasonable room change. Since Holden verbalized to Chartwell that she was sick, and requested an accommodation, she satisfied her duty to properly notify employer. After she took medical leave, Holden might have been embarrassed, or emotionally unable to ask for any further accommodations. However, Chartwell, once aware of her disability, still had the responsibility to accommodate as much as possible. Simply excusing Holden from work was insufficient. Chartwell was aware of her disability, but did not continue the interactive process by seeking more information. Also, Holden was given further awareness from Holdens doctor. Receiving a doctors letter is indicative of a significant disability, one that should be taken seriously by an employer, and accommodated appropriately. However, Chartwell remained inflexible by rejecting both of her suggestions to work in an exterior room. If Chartwell, still, did not understand how to accommodate, then he should have continued the interactive process directly with Holden, instead he continued the interactive process with the school nurse. Holden is the only one that can help determine an appropriate accommodation. On the other hand, Holden might not have fully informed Chartwell to the extent necessary. Initially, she only informed him of her depression. Chartwell provided extra medical leave, thinking that he had done everything possible to accommodate the
3

particular condition made aware to him. When a person is depressed, a reasonable person would presume that relief of workplace stress is a reasonable accommodation. So, Holden did not fulfill her duty to notify Chartwell of her exact disability, leaving him inadequatelyinformed. Also, Holden might have broken the interactive process. Chartwell maintained a good faith, interactive process by clarifying the information from the doctors letter with the school nurse, and called Holden to seek further information. This indicates that he was attempting to maintain a balanced discussion of appropriate solutions. However, during this interactive process, Holden remained inflexible, and abruptly resigned. Her resignation broke the required interactive process between employer and employee. Just as the employer in Beck was not liable, because of employers reasonable efforts, and Becks breakdown of the interactive process, the school is not liable either, because Holdens resignation broke the interactive process, while Chartwell attempted to make reasonable efforts. Therefore, Holden might not have a proper discrimination claim because she broke the obligatory interactive process. II. Responsibility of the Parties to Reasonably Accommodate Chartwell did not reasonably accommodate Holdens disability. To reasonably accommodate, employers must create compatible, workplace fixtures, revise administrative procedures, and acquire or modify equipment and devices. 42 U.S.C. 12111 (2012). This includes revising ordinary work rules and modifying facilities. Beck, at 1135. Employer has the right to decide how to reasonably accommodate. EEOC, 417 F.3d at 802 (quoting Jay v. Intermet Wagner, Inc., 233 F.3d 1014, 1017 (7th Cir. 2000)).
4

Employer cannot be compelled to make the exact accommodations that employee desires. Id. (quoting Jay v. Intermet Wagner, Inc., 233 F.3d 1014, 1017 (7th Cir. 2000)). However, An ineffective modification or adjustment will not accommodate a disabled individuals limitations. EEOC, 17 F.3d at 802 (quoting U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391, 400, 122 S.Ct. 1516, (2002)) (emphasis in original). If employer can show that an accommodation inflicts an undue hardship, then accommodation is not required. 42 U.S.C. 12112 (2012). Undue hardship exists when employee requests considerably inconvenient or costly accommodations. 42 U.S.C. 12111 (2012). To establish an undue hardship, the cost to the employer, which would include both monetary costs and other intangible costs, (for example, the disruption of business . . . ) must be evaluated against employees benefit Vande Zande v. State of Wis. Dept of Admin., 44 F.3d 538, 543 (7th Cir. 1995). If expense of the requested accommodation is disproportionate to benefits provided, then the accommodation is unnecessary. Id. The school might have failed to reasonably accommodate. Chartwell suggested Holden relocate to an exterior, sunlit room. However, this room ineffectively modifies her limitations because the rooms windows are tinted. The purpose of tinting windows is to eliminate sunlight, so this room switch does not accurately suit Holdens needs. Deflecting sunlight is antithetical to the requested accommodation, thus is not an appropriate accommodation. Holden, then, requested a different, exterior room, although already occupied. Chartwell rejected this suggestion because of traditional, administrative procedures. However, employers must revise all the administrative procedures necessary
5

to reasonably accommodate disabled employees. Switching to the more sunlit room seems the most efficient option, because no construction or extra cost is needed. Also, Chartwell has previously revised this procedure for other employees. So, to modify procedures for Holden is not unreasonable, considering assisting a disabled employee is a, presumably, more serious situation. Switching to another room only entails the relocation of personal items and a small amount of time and energy. So, to revise the administrative procedures would not cause a substantial disruption of business. Chartwells failure to revise the administrative procedures indicates his failure to reasonably accommodate. This modified equipment could have provided nutrients similar to natural sunlight, without disrupting business. Additionally, even if Holden had not broken the interactive process, the school might still deflect liability. Constructing a new room costs $100,000, and most schools shoulder a tightly, fixed budget. Generally, schools already experience undue hardship, excluding unplanned construction projects. So, to build a room for only one employee would be a costly accommodation, outweighing the benefits provided. Room construction would cause undue hardship, so the school might not be liable. CONCLUSION Chartwell did reasonably accommodate Holden, by making reasonable effort to accommodate. Holden is responsible for withholding essential knowledge, and breaking the interactive process. This good faith process is an integral part of determining reasonable accommodation, and the school will not be held liable for her withdrawal
6

from the process. Therefore, Holden does not hold a valid discrimination claim against her employer.

Você também pode gostar