UP’s policy provided for 2 written notices of attendance violations thereafter, additional violations led to dismissal from employment.ĭansie temporarily lost his eligibility for FMLA due to time off during an earlier termination/unpaid suspension which was administratively overturned. Employees were expected to be available to work full time. UP scheduled its conductors using an on-call system. On appeal, the 10 th Circuit found that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find that UP violated the ADA. The trial court granted summary judgment for UP on the ADA claim (and also entered a judgment in favor of UP on a jury verdict on the FMLA claim). Kelly Dansie, a former on-call train conductor undergoing treatment for AIDS and testicular cancer, sued Union Pacific (UP) under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) after UP terminated his employment. When a federal appellate court begins its opinion like this, it is probably not good news for the employer.Īnd in this instance, it was not. Once an employee triggers the interactive process, both the employee and the employer have an obligation to proceed in a reasonably interactive manner to determine the employee’s limitations and consider whether the accommodations he requests- or perhaps others that might surface during the interactive process-would enable the employee to return to work.
When an employee provides notice to his employer of a disability and expresses a desire for a reasonable accommodation, the employee and the employer must engage in good-faith communications-what we have termed the interactive process.
0 kommentar(er)
