A new federal case is stretching the limits of how far employers have to go to accommodate a disabled worker.

You know of course that, under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), employers are required to make reasonable accommodations for known disabilities of workers, as long as those accommodations don’t create undue hardships for the company.

The question is: Where can employers draw the line?

That was the question at hand in a recent federal case out of Pennsylvania where a staff member suddenly lost her ability to drive at night.

‘It wouldn’t be fair’ to the other workers

Shortly after starting work at Rite-Aid, cashier Jeanette Colwell lost vision in her left eye.

Though Colwell could do her job without an accommodation, she was no longer able to drive at night. Since buses didn’t run late in her town and there was no taxi service, she requested that she only be scheduled for day shifts.

Her supervisor, however, denied her request, saying it “wouldn’t be fair” to the other staff.

Colwell got a note from her doctor recommending that she not drive at night, but her manager denied the request again.

Did manager not do enough?

Colwell eventually resigned and filed suit, claiming Rite-Aid violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by not changing her shift.

Rite-Aid countered that it wasn’t required to accommodate her – how she got to and from work fell outside the scope of the ADA.

But the judge sided with Colwell. The issue wasn’t so much how Colwell got to work but when she was scheduled to work. Since a company can control when its employees work, it can accommodate a shift change request if it’s reasonable – and Rite-Aid was unable to prove Colwell’s request created an undue hardship.

Managers should always consider every possible option for accommodating a disabled worker’s request – even ones that may go against the norm. As long as employees’ requests aren’t extreme, there probably is an accommodation that works for everyone – not to mention one that keeps everyone out of court.

Cite: Colwell v. Rite-Aid