Author Note: This paper was prepare for Managing Employment Law in Business HRM 306 Contents Abstract 3 Introduction 4 Body 4 Conclusion 6 References 7
Abstract One part of the American Disability Act, states that “employers must try to offer reasonable accommodation to an employee, unless doing so would cause significantly difficulty to the employer or too costly.” This case is about did the employer offer reasonable accommodation to a wheelchair bound call center employee or did they unjustly terminate him because of his disability. The employee did make his employer aware of his special needs but did the company try to make reasonable accommodations for this disabled employee
Introduction Convergys Customer Management Group, Inc. is a call center that hired a wheelchair bound employee named Demirelli. Mr. Demirelli was constantly late from breaks, lunch, and to work. The company did not have assigned workstations or sufficient parking for people who are disabled in their parking lot. Convergys Customer Management call center had a very strict tardy policy in place for the company to be profitable. Mr. Demirelli was ultimately terminated from the company. Mr. Demirelli sued Convergys Customer Management Group, Inc. and won.
Body
“Do you believe the employer made a good-faith effort to reasonably accommodate the employee? “ Mr. Demirelli is wheelchair bound due his disease of brittle bones and this made traveling difficult for him. No, the employer did not make a good –faith effort to reasonably accommodate Mr. Demirelli. Mr. Demirelli first complained to the employer how he was having a hard time of finding a parking spot in the parking lot. He also made effort after effort to try to correct his tardiness. He even was coming to work an hour earlier to correct his tardiness, but due to there was only two handicapped van parking space that did not rectify his problem because the parking spaces was always occupied. Also, the call center did not have assigned work spaces so he usually have to find a workstation that was left and the furthest away because he was in the wheelchair. The employer should have given him an assigned parking space and workstation to try to help Mr. Demirelli. Management should have offered some kind of accommodations to the employee to help solve his problem of tardiness. Management really did not make a reasonable good-faith effort to help the employee solve his issues other than allowing the employee to be late more than policy allowed before they fired him.
“Can you imagine other accommodations that may have been considered by the employer to be less disruptive to its three-minute punctuality requirement? Do you agree with the court that fifteen minutes is a reasonable accommodation at the beginning of the work day and after lunch? The company could have offered special assigned parking space and work space for employees that are wheelchair bound. Also, the company can stagnant the employees start time to work, breaks, and lunch hour. Yes, I do agree with the courts that an extra allowance of fifteen minutes should have been offered to employees that are wheelchair bound. All of these accommodations are reasonable and will not present significant difficulty or cost to the company. Employee did make his supervisor aware of his difficulties and was trying to be proactive on correcting his tardiness to work. The company was aware of his disabilities and did not offer any kind of accommodations but to tell him to try harder to be on time.
If increasing the number of special needs parking spaces would have allowed Demirelli to arrive at work on time, should the court have simply required that accommodations as an alternative? Cost was not discussed in this excerpted opinion; but do you think there should be a dollar limit on the price of a reasonable accommodation? No, because the company did not act in “good faith” to try to accommodate his disability. The company was very negligent in adhering to the American Disability Act. There was no significant cost involve for the company to accommodate the employee by assigning additional handicapped parking spaces or allowing an extra fifteen minutes for a wheel bound from lunch break. No I do not think a dollar amount limit should be placed on reasonable accommodations because it might it easier for a company to disregards American Disability Act and each case is very different one from another.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Mr. Demirelli won his suit with Convergys Customer Management Group and was awarded $100,000. Mr. Demirelli requested an extra 15 minutes to be allotted to work and from break in which seems like a very reasonable request that a person that is in wheelchair would make. This request would not been presented a difficulty or significant cost to the company to accommodate. Mr. Demirelli or the company could have taken an extra step on accommodating him by assigning him a special parking spot, assign more handicapped parking spaces or just allotted him the extra 15 minutes that he requested. The plaintiff in this case was awarded $100,000.00 in which the company said it was excessive and should be remitted. I agree with the courts that this amount do not shock the conscious and was not an exuberant of amount to be awarded in an ADA lawsuit. EEOC v. Convergys Customer Management Group, Inc., 491f.3d790 (8th Cir: 2007)
References
Alexander, D., & Hartman, L. (2015). Gender Discrimination. In Employment law for Business (Eighth ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
Wedow v. City of Kanas City, Missouri y 442 F.3d 442 (8th Cir: 2006). (n.d.). Retrieved September 19, 2015.
