In a June 2007 press release, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) reported that in its fiscal year 2006, it had received almost 17,000 complaints of employment discrimination "on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, disability and reprisal." The law requires that employment discrimination complaints be filed with the EEOC before filing them in court. During its investigation of each complaint, the EEOC requires a response from the employer and requests copies of a wide variety of documents. This results in a substantial commitment of time and money. If court proceedings follow, the additional time and money expended can seriously detract the employer's attention from its primary mission. Thus it is prudent to establish a well-thought risk-management program to reduce the risk of employment practices litigation. A good program also boosts employee morale because it should include a process to enhance the quality of communication between management and employees.
This article describes an example of alleged discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and offers risk-management techniques. Although all the facts described are a matter of public record, changes have been made to protect the identity of the persons involved.
Case Example: Alleged Violations of the ADA
Sally was a longtime nurse practitioner for a large, rural community mental health center. She worked for the center her entire career (more than 20 years). Her performance evaluations were uniformly glowing. Her supervisors described her as a "self starter" who frequently did more than was asked of her. She was responsible for directing the center's inpatient crisis stabilization unit. Her coworkers liked and respected her, and she had formed many long friendships with them. The center's management had changed during the past three years of her tenure following the CEO's departure to different employment.
Unfortunately, Sally became ill with leukemia at about the same time management changed. She had to take leave from the center for treatment, which included chemotherapy. She returned to her job after five months and again received a good performance evaluation.
Within a year, however, her condition deteriorated, and she had to take another leave of absence. Her recovery from a second round of chemotherapy was slower, but her doctors were encouraging, saying that she would have a normal life expectancy. Her doctors eventually cleared her to return to work, but she was restricted to part time. Although she could care for herself, feed herself, and drive, she had low energy and difficulty walking and lifting. It was difficult for her to stand for extended periods. She became tired easily after work activities requiring more than mild exertion.
The crisis unit had a rotation schedule for night duty, which her doctors advised her not to do. Thus, Sally told the CEO that she was disabled and asked the center to accommodate her disability by allowing her to return to full-time work gradually. She also asked to be taken off the night duty rotation until she was able to work full time.
Sally did return to work part time, but she heard rumors that the CEO was going to "force her out." She became upset and shared some of her frustration with coworkers, telling them that she thought the CEO was not willing to accommodate her. The CEO heard that she was talking to coworkers, and sent her a memo ordering her not to talk about her accommodation requests and to say only that her continued employment depended on her doctors' recommendations. Sally responded with a memo agreeing to say that her continued employment depended on her doctors. However, she also asserted that she felt she had a right to express her opinion that management was not willing to accommodate her. When the CEO received her memo, Sally was fired for "insubordination. …