The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is applicable in John’s situation. The statute became effective in January 2009 and updated the definition of disability (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2019). It defines disability as any impairment that substantially restrains major life activities. ADA and the Rehabilitation Act protection indicate that “as long as an employee is qualified for a position, with or without reasonable accommodation, the employer is prohibited from making any adverse employment decision solely based on the disability” (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2019). Through the broader perspective adopted after 2009, any condition, whether physiological or mental, which limits major activities is considered a disability. Employers must be cautious of reasonable accommodations, which are adjustments made to a job environment to allow a qualified individual with a disability to participate in essential job functions (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2019).
The legal issue that exists in this scenario is that John’s employer, Mark, wants to fire him due to his recent struggles at work. He faces difficulties concentrating and makes numerous mistakes. Telco is aware that John has diabetes. Additionally, Mark must be aware of John’s condition because he recently missed several days of work due to his diabetes. John can argue that the employer does not have the right to fire him solely on being diabetic. Another claim would highlight John’s long tenure at Telco. He has worked at the company for 20 years, indicating his commitment and loyal service to his employer. Also, Mark has not explored the reasonable accommodations needed for employees with diabetes.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
For ADA to protect diabetic employees against wrongful termination, employers have to be notified of the condition impairing the employee’s ability to perform essential job functions (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2019). In this case, Telco is aware of John’s condition because he took some days off due to his condition. According to Bennett-Alexander and Hartman (2019), employees requesting reasonable accommodation from the employer may use ‘plain English’ and need not mention the ADA or use the phrase ‘reasonable accommodation”(Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2019). This means that John can simply request for consideration from the employer and reasonable accommodation. Therefore, Mark must exercise caution when making decisions about John. He is obliged to find any way possible to ensure that John is accommodated in the company with his condition. This can include temporary leave for treatment, recuperation and training.
The Gogos v. AMS Mechanical Systems 737 F.3d 1170 (7th Cir. 2013) case is related to this scenario. In Gogos v. AMS, the plaintiff was fired due to his high blood pressure condition (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2019). The seventh circuit reversed a district court ruling and indicated that despite the blood pressure spike and vision loss manifesting in an episodic way, the ADA now covers these conditions as disabilities (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2019). Gogos, the plaintiff, was taking medication to relieve his elevated blood pressure. His blood pressure spiked leading to temporary vision loss (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2019). He sought leave from his supervisor to receive treatment after one of his eyes turned red the following morning. As Gogos left the site, he informed the foreman that “his health was not very good lately” (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2019). He was immediately fired. Gogos claimed that he was qualified to perform essential functions with reasonable accommodation since his condition limited two vital functions, his sight and circulatory function.
To prevent future exposure to liability, managers must make decisions in consideration of any statutes, which may lead to potential lawsuits. They must explore all opportunities for reasonable accommodation before deciding to fire an employee (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2019). Managers must undergo regular training to prevent poor decision-making caused by lack of education. In my experience in HRM, I have found that most supervisors desire to make decisions that are beneficial for all stakeholders. Informative and interactive training is essential in helping managers to understand complicated terms and analyze previous cases involving similar situations. Furthermore, employees should be informed that they have a right to seek reasonable accommodation if they meet all qualifications.
References
Bennett-Alexander, D., & Hartman, L. (2019). Employment Law for Business (9th Ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
