Sources of the Law

Fitzgerald went to his physician for a routine examination. The doctor discovered that Fitzgerald's vision was failing. To prevent further problems, Fitzgerald would have to have special lighting installed in his office at work. He would also have to change his work schedule so that he would not have to drive after dark. When Fitzgerald told his employers about the changes, they fired him claiming that the alterations in his office and in his work schedule would cause too much disorder at work. Angered by this mistreatment, Fitzgerald sued his employers. He argued that a federal statute, the Americans with Disabilities Act, says that employers must try to meet the individual needs of workers who are handicapped even if these changes cause some inconvenience and disorder. Which of the two primary objectives of the law does this statute address? Which objective does it hurt? In your opinion, how should the judge decide this case? Explain your reasons.

According to the Legal Database, The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires covered entities, including Fitzgerald's place of employment as a private employers, "to provide reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, unless such covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship." Unless the adjustment in scheduling will provide an undue hardship to the company, or changing the lighting, the company must comply with the terms of the act. ("Disability discrimination, 2004, Legal Database)

The primary purpose of the law is to prevent discrimination in hiring, or in this case, to disability discrimination resulting unlawful termination claim. An employee must show that: 1) his or her employer is subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act; 2) her or she suffers from a disability within the meaning of the ADA, of which blindness and/or impaired vision is one 3) her or she could perform the essential function of her job with or without reasonable accommodation; and 4) he or she was discharged because of his or her disability, as Fitzgerald clearly is. The only contentious issue is (3), if the employee can still perform his functions with the added lighting and in a way compliant with the new schedule without inconveniencing or causing too much hardship and hurt to the employer or to other employees. However, although Fitzgerald's claim is forwarded by the enforcement of the ADA, even if he stays on, it is unlikely the company will be willing to hire other disabled workers, for fear of incurring additional expenses. Still, a judge should decide in favor of Fitzgerald, provided he is not a night watchman or some other occupation that requires night work and close vision. ("Disability discrimination, 2004, Legal Database)

Work cited

"Disability discrimination." (2004) Legal Database. Retrieved 28 Jan 2005 at http://www.legal-database.com/disability-discrimination.htm