Employees with Disabilities: A Panel Review of Challenging - - PDF document

employees with disabilities a panel review of challenging
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Employees with Disabilities: A Panel Review of Challenging - - PDF document

9/27/2016 Employees with Disabilities: A Panel Review of Challenging Scenarios 2016 Idaho Employment Law Conference Idaho State Council of SHRM September 30, 2016 Panel Presenters Linda Goodman , Administrator John Stanley , Attorney Idaho


slide-1
SLIDE 1

9/27/2016 1

Employees with Disabilities: A Panel Review of Challenging Scenarios

2016 Idaho Employment Law Conference Idaho State Council of SHRM

September 30, 2016

Panel Presenters

Kara Heikkila, Attorney

Hawley Troxell

kheikkila@hawleytroxell.com 208-388-4984

John Ashby, Attorney

Hawley Troxell

jashby@hawleytroxell.com 208-388-4844

Linda Goodman, Administrator

Idaho Human Rights Commission

Linda.goodman@labor.idaho.gov 208-334-2873

John Stanley, Attorney

EEOC Seattle Field Office

john.stanley@eeoc.gov 206-220-6882

Erika Birch, Attorney

Strindberg & Scholnick

erika@idahojobjustice.com 208-336-1788

Disability Discrimination Trends in Idaho

IHRC Charges (FY 2016)

  • Disability 42%

– Harassment 24% – Failure to Hire 6% – Discharge 79% – Accommodation 43%

  • Sex 35%
  • Retaliation (all) 27%
  • Age 17%
  • National Origin 9%
  • Race 6%
  • Religion 6%

EEOC ID (ALL US) (2015)

  • Disability 51% (30%)
  • Retaliation 40% (44.5%)
  • Age 27% (22.5%)
  • Sex 31% (30%)
  • Religion 8% (4%)
  • National Origin 7.5% (11%)
  • Race 11.5% (35%)
slide-2
SLIDE 2

9/27/2016 2

Hypothetical One - Sofia

  • Sofia is software engineer for BLS, which employs 200 individuals

and has yet to turn a profit

  • She has bipolar disorder (affecting concentration, judgment, impulse

control) controlled by medication

  • Sofia works on a 5-member team in an open-sided cubicle, but work

is done independently with just one weekly team meeting

  • She

has been employed since 2014 and has had positive evaluations

  • At

a team meeting, she criticized a teammate, saying his programming skills “sucked” and he was a “drag on the team”

  • She received a counseling notice for unprofessional conduct for that

remark, and in a meeting with HR disclosed her bipolar disorder and advised she “might need help”

Hypothetical One - Sofia

  • Sofia’s psychiatrist sent a note to HR saying she had an ADA

condition and requested a privacy screen on the open side of the cubicle to help with concentration issues

  • HR

advised this was a vague request, that she had good performance, and that she merely had a personality dispute with her teammate

  • HR declined the privacy screen request, and requested more

medical documentation

  • The psychiatrist responded with a statement that her condition

affects her ability to interact and her ability to concentrate

  • HR offered Sofia noise-cancelling headphones, which Sofia believed

were ineffective and interfered with her work

  • HR then offered her a move to a vacant cubicle with the same

equipment, far removed from her team

Hypothetical One - Sofia

  • Sofia responded that she “didn’t want to be sent to Siberia, shit!

What does it take to get a stupid screen?”

  • The cost of the screen was $200, with a $500 installation
  • HR disciplined her for the comments about the screen
  • Sofia remains employed, but HR expects to hear more about this

and is getting frustrated

  • HR representative have discussed whether Sofia is really a good fit
slide-3
SLIDE 3

9/27/2016 3

Sofia, Questions

  • What should BLS do?
  • Was the request for a privacy screen reasonable, and should that

request be granted? Does it matter that BLS is not profitable?

  • Were the alternative accommodations reasonable?
  • What if instead of a screen, Sofia’s psychiatrist advises that she

should telecommute, and come in once a week for the team meeting?

  • Can granting limited telecommuting opportunities be used against

the company when they deny similar requests to other employees?

  • What are the common mistakes that employers make when it comes

to psychiatric or mental disabilities?

  • What if Sofia’s conduct escalates to threats of physical violence?

Hypothetical Two - Tom

  • Tom works for CSA as a financial analyst
  • He is diagnosed with MS, which is accommodated as the disease

progresses with automated doors, work station modifications, and word recognition software

  • Years later he requires use of an electric wheelchair and assistance

with daily living tasks

  • Tom received high performance ratings, but then his evaluations

were regularly delayed and began to reflect lower ratings

  • His

most recent performance evaluation noted that his accommodations were an undue hardship and that aid provided by coworkers was a “potential health and safety threat”

Hypothetical Two - Tom

  • Tom was given the choice of disciplinary action, or FMLA as a

continuing accommodation followed by a medical layoff

  • At that point, Tom requested another accommodation that might

have addressed the performance and safety concerns, but CSA believed it had done enough over many years to accommodate him

  • Tom opted for the FMLA and then medical layoff after 26 years of

employment

slide-4
SLIDE 4

9/27/2016 4

Tom, Questions

  • Was Tom a qualified employee under the ADA at the end of his

employment?

  • Could Tom be reasonably accommodated at the end of

his employment, without undue hardship?

  • What should CSA have done with respect to the interactive process

when Tom requested an additional accommodation at the end of his employment?

  • When

has an employer provided enough reasonable accommodation?

  • What if Tom applied for Social Security Disability benefits after his

employment ended? Can he still claim he is a qualified employee able to complete his job?

Hypothetical Three - John

  • John applies as a part-time care giver for Acme Group Homes, a

residential facility caring for individuals with physical and intellectual disabilities

  • The job requires the ability to physically lift, transfer, bath, and

ambulate residents, but no lifting requirement is set out in the advertising or in any job description

  • The application form requests workers’ compensation and disability

information for the applicant, which John answers with information about his PTSD, scars, and SSDI benefits

  • John is offered the job, and on his first day of work completes a

health history, which requests information on medications that would limit his physical ability to complete the job or safely care for the residents, or whether he has a communicable disease, and John answers “no” to these questions

Hypothetical Three - John

  • A month later, John takes a random drug test, which shows positive

for a series of drugs including OxyContin

  • Acme requests additional information, and John provides several

prescription bottles

  • Because the OxyContin is not among the prescriptions John brought

in, Acme requests a list of all medications he is taking and the reason he is taking them

  • John’s medical provider writes a note that verifies he takes

OxyContin for chronic knee pain, a condition he did not disclose on the health screen. However, there remained confusion about the prescription for OxyContin, which was written by an ER doctor

  • John is discharged for making false statements on his application,

for failing to provide a valid prescription for the OxyContin, for failing to disclose a knee injury that might limit his ability to perform his job, and for failure to disclose prescriptions that might impair his ability to care for the residents

slide-5
SLIDE 5

9/27/2016 5

John, Questions

  • What mistakes did Acme make with respect to its timing?
  • When can an employer ask disability-related questions and require

medical examinations?

  • Shouldn’t employers reasonably be concerned about the direct

threat tied to opioid use by employees?

  • How important is an accurate job description? Will the EEOC/IHRC

agree with an employer’s decision to list things such as attendance and tolerance for stress on a job description?

  • Had the medical inquiries in this case been made post-offer, pre-

employment, could Acme terminate John and avoid liability for disability discrimination claims?

Hypothetical Four - June

  • June injures her knee during training as a new law enforcement
  • fficer for Day County
  • June

received conservative care during a brief workers’ compensation leave and returned to regular duty

  • One year later, June re-injures the same knee, and this time has

surgery, for which she takes an extended leave and returns to light duty, then her regular duty

  • Another year later, June injures her same knee for the third time,

which results in a second surgery. At this point, her surgeon completes the FMLA paperwork to say that June must be on an “indefinite” leave until her prognosis can be determined, which Day County grants

  • Six months later, June is released to light duty, but Day County

declines, advising that it has no light duty available as other officers are also injured and already in limited light duty roles

Hypothetical Four - June

  • June is also told by her supervisor at this point that she should have

a “Plan B” and is asked to turn in her vehicle and her gun

  • She is medically stable and is sent to a rating or MMI appointment,

where she receives a 12% impairment rating

  • June continues to be advised no light duty is available, despite

being released to modified duty, and is also told that she must be 100% healed to return to her law enforcement job

  • June is released to light duty, but Day County declines, advising that

it has no light duty available as other officers are also injured and already in limited light duty roles

  • After one year, June is released to her regular duty law enforcement

job, with restrictions on walking and standing (4 hours) and twisting and bending (2 hours)

  • June returns to work and at that point is advised she was being

reassigned to a different position due to the fact she could not safely return to the law enforcement position

slide-6
SLIDE 6

9/27/2016 6

Hypothetical Four - June

  • Day County also sends June to a second orthopedist, who confirms

she could perform the essential functions, but added additional lifting restrictions to the list

  • June and Day County agree to seek a third opinion, and that

surgeon releases June without restriction

  • June then requests an accommodation to wear a baggier uniform to

accommodate her knee brace, which was delayed when the parties agreed to a “tie-break” fourth orthopedic opinion

  • The fourth surgeon releases June to the same restrictions set out by

the first two surgeons, including walking/standing/bending/twisting and lifting

  • Day County offers June the non-law enforcement position as an

accommodation of last resort

June, Questions

  • How often are workers’ compensation claims tied to disability

discrimination claims in Idaho?

  • Are 100% healed policies appropriate? Does it matter that this is a

law enforcement officer position?

  • Is an indefinite leave a reasonable accommodation?
  • Is the threat of continued claim costs a reason to transfer an

employee to a job with less risk of injury?

  • If June cannot return to her job as a law enforcement officer, does

Day County have to reassign June to vacant open position as a reasonable accommodation, without competitively opening the job to

  • ther applicants?

Final Perspectives - Best Practices