Lucky Stores faced a typical problem. An employee who was injured on the job wanted to return to work even though his doctors had imposed restrictions on his duties. The supermarket carefully considered the employee’s work limitations, extended his disability leave more than once and eventually offered him a part-time job he was qualified to perform. When the employee turned around and sued for disability discrimination, Lucky was in a strong position to defend itself – and won the case.Lucky’s experience provides a textbook example of how to handle accommodation issues. It also underscores how a run-of-the-mill disability-related dispute can end up in the court of appeal – costing you plenty in attorneys’ fees even if you prevail.
Meat Cutter Injured On The Job
Wayne Hanson injured his hand and wrist while working as a journeyman meat cutter at a Los Angeles Lucky. Even though Hanson’s union contract provided for only nine months of leave for work-related injuries, Lucky extended his disability leave at least eight times, ultimately giving him 16 months off.Hanson’s doctor eventually released him to return to work, but said he could not do any heavy lifting, pulling or pushing with his right hand. Lucky concluded that those restrictions prevented Hanson from returning to the meat cutter position.
400+ pages of state-specific, easy-read reference materials at your fingertips—fully updated! Check out the Guide to Employment Law for California Employers and get up to speed on everything you need to know.
Managers Consider Other Jobs
After careful consideration, Lucky’s regional human resources manager and the company’s workers’ compensation supervisor determined that Hanson’s original job couldn’t be modified to accommodate him. Hanson, who also had a restriction against prolonged standing, wanted to remain in the meat department. So Lucky offered him the only position available, which was as a part-time meat clerk earning about half his original wage. Hanson refused the job, was terminated and sued Lucky for failing to accommodate his disability.
Court Finds Employer Did Enough
The California Court of Appeal sided with Lucky and threw out Hanson’s case. The court concluded Lucky had reasonably accommodated Hanson twice – first by extending his disability leave, and second by offering him a position he was qualified to perform.The court rejected Hanson’s argument that Lucky should have accommodated him by modifying the meat cutter position or providing special equipment that would have allowed him to stay in his original job.According to the court, Hanson’s own doctors didn’t believe changing the equipment would enable him to perform the meat cutter job. Plus, the court said, you don’t have to grant the specific accommodation an employee requests if you provide another reasonable and effective accommodation – which Lucky did.
Accommodation Strategies
The court’s ruling demonstrates the importance of following proper procedures when considering employee accommodation requests. To be in the strongest position, you need to go the extra mile to try to come up with an accommodation that will enable the person to keep working – including a part-time job if that’s all that is available. Although you may not prevent a lawsuit, you’ll strengthen your defense if the case ends up in court.