Failure to make an accommodation complaint derails case

• Published date: 01 January 2015
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/nba.30032
• Date: 01 January 2015

10

January 2015nOnPrOFIT BuSInESS aDVISOr

© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., A Wiley Company • All rights reserved

DOI: 10.1002/nba

Employment Law

Here’s a look at several recent notable lawsuits involving nonprots. Nonprots should regularly review

employment laws and their compliance efforts to avert similar issues.

Disability

Insufficient evidence dooms former

employee’s case

In 2008, Sandra Sanders began working for the

Judson Center, a nonprot human service agency

providing services to the mentally disabled. Her du-

ties included assisting with the transportation of the

patients.

In 2009, Sanders suffered a heart attack. A year

later, she was in the hospital twice more for heart-

related conditions. As a result of her condition,

Sanders was required to take several medications

that caused her kidneys to eliminate water and salt

through urination.

Because of an unrelated incident involving a co-

worker, all Judson employees were advised in May

2012 that they must keep the patients in sight at all

times, and that when needing to use the restroom

while supervising a patient they were to either ask

someone else to temporarily watch that patient or

bring that patient into the restroom.

On the evening of May 29, Sanders was transport-

ing patients. Overcome with an urgent need to urinate,

she stopped at a gas station to use the restroom and

left the patients in the van. While Sanders was in the

restroom, one of the patients got out, entered the gas

station and attempted to go grocery shopping.

Sanders was able to get the patient back into the

van for the trip back to the center.

Upon being advised of the incident, a manager

red her.

Sanders led a suit against Judson that alleged vio-

lations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The center led a motion for summary judgment,

arguing that Sanders was not disabled within the

meaning of the ADA.

District Judge Judith Levy said that an inquiry

into whether a person was disabled under the ADA

consisted of two parts, which were whether an im-

pairment existed, and, if so, whether it substantially

limited a major life activity.

With respect to the rst issue, Sanders claimed to

have an impairment based on her heart condition and

the side effects of the medications that caused her to

urinate on a sometimes urgent basis.

The judge agreed that Sanders was impaired, not-

ing that the medication was prescribed by her doctor,

and was required to treat a medical condition already

in existence.

EMPLOYER WINS ➔ However, Judge Levy

said that Sanders had failed to show that she was

substantially limited in a major life activity, because

the only evidence Sanders had provided was her

deposition testimony stating that her urge to use

the restroom was so extreme on that particular

night that she could not focus. The judge said that

her testimony was limited to the night in question,

and that there was no evidence tending to show that

the inability to think straight was a regular or even

sporadic occurrence.

Because there was insufcient evidence that the

impairment substantially limited a life activity, the

judge ruled that Sanders was not disabled within the

meaning of the ADA, and granted summary judg-

ment in favor of the Judson Center.

[Sanders v. Judson Center Inc., U.S. District Court

for the Eastern District of Michigan, No. 13-cv-

12090, 08/06/2014].

Disability

Failure to make an accommodation

complaint derails case

Barbara Givens was the supervisor of the Monroe

County youth detention center. Daniel Perna was the

program director.

Givens had folliculitis in her groin, which resulted

from her diabetes. To deal with it, she wore loose-

tting, moisture-wicking sweatpants.

In February 2011, Perna advised Givens that she

was in violation of the dress code for wearing athletic

pants and sent her to the county’s Americans with

Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance ofcer.

Givens requested an accommodation and sup-

ported it with a note from her doctor.

In March, Givens was permitted to wear moisture-

wicking pants to work, and the county reimbursed

her $90 for that expense.

Givens later led a suit claiming that the county

had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act

because those pants were not moisture-wicking.