One final shining nugget for plaintiffs: The court held that, to win, the plaintiff need not show that the employer's reason for any adverse employment action was a pretext for discrimination. The court wrote:
“Here, it is undisputed that [the plaintiff] was tardy because of his disability and that he was disciplined because of his tardiness. In other words, [he] was disciplined because of his disability. Pretext is not an issue in this case; instead, [the plaintiff] need only demonstrate that, with reasonable accommodations, he could have performed the essential functions of his job.”
1 comment:
Very interesting, and good to know. I wonder what the plaintiff did for a living, and what sort of "reasonable" accommodations could have been made.
I once worked with someone who had a stroke in her 40s. Our employer made several accommodations for her, and she was able to return to work after several months of medical leave.
I realize "reasonable accommodation" costs may indeed be too difficult to manage for some companies, though. This, of course, would need to be proven if a company were to try to use this defense for disciplinary action or termination, but it doesn't seem like this particular defendent chose this path.
Post a Comment