How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Phillips Esq. Your Own Question
Phillips Esq.
Phillips Esq., Attorney-at-Law
Category: Employment Law
Satisfied Customers: 17872
Experience:  B.A.; M.B.A.; J.D.
16551887
Type Your Employment Law Question Here...
Phillips Esq. is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

This is about Federal Employment Law, EEOC and FMLA.

Customer Question

This is about Federal Employment Law, EEOC and FMLA. For an employee that has been out of work because of a work injury (fracture of tail bone). He went back to work after 6 months with restriction from the doctor. (Family Medical Leave has already been
used before he went back to work.) The employer failed to accommodate the restriction from the doctor. In fact, his manager made him report to his peer, who assign him low level programming work, which required more sitting, while the restriction specifically
stated that the injured worker cannot sit for long. The employer had the manager fill out a form with specific hours to sit each time and the total hours of sitting required per day. The employer seemed to try to prove that they cannot accommodate the restriction,
producing legal excuse to fire the injured worker. Because of the heavy workload, the employee was pull off work again by the doctor after 3 months. 8 months later, the workers comp case was settled without a general release ( meaning, the employee can still
sue the employer). The employee still has not fully recovered. Does the employee have a case for Americans with Disabilities Act (88)? Notice that Family Medical Leave has already been used before he went back to work. for more than a year, with a brief period
in the middle that he went back to work with restriction.
Submitted: 1 year ago.
Category: Employment Law
Expert:  Phillips Esq. replied 1 year ago.

No. The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) does not require that an employer provide an employee with reasonable accommodation in order for the employee to do his or her job. ADA only requires that an employer "provide reasonable accommodation to an employee or job applicant with a disability, unless doing so would cause significant difficulty or expense for the employer ("undue hardship"). So, if an employer refuses/fails to provide reasonable accommodation to an employee because it would cause undue hardship to the employer, or if a prospective employer find it cannot provide reasonable accommodation to a job applicant without undue hardship to the employer and thus refuses to hire the job applicant, that would not be a violation of the ADA. The employee or job applicant would not have a case for disability discrimination at that time.

I am so sorry that I do not have better news for you.

Customer: replied 1 year ago.
I am not sure I understand the logic of your answer. You seems to be interpreting the following law:" employers do not need to ABC unless the employee can prove that doing ABC will NOT cause significant difficulty or expense for the employer." Right?
Expert:  Phillips Esq. replied 1 year ago.

Wrong. What I quoted to you is the legal requirement for Reasonable Accommodation pursuant to ADA.

http://www.ada.gov/qandaeng.htm

Related Employment Law Questions