Election season can bring out the best and worst in our nation. The important issues that should be the focus sometimes take a backseat to headline-grabbing one-liners. But true leaders emerge at some point in nearly every campaign. It remains to be seen which of this cycle’s large group of presidential contenders will have such a moment, but we can learn a lot from leaders of the past as we wait for it. 
On March 4, 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt was inaugurated as the 32nd president of the United States. After taking the oath of office, he delivered his inaugural address. Speaking to a nation in the grip of the Great Depression, he famously told the American people that the only thing they had to fear was fear itself—”nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.” Eighty-two years later, Roosevelt’s words still ring true in many contexts, including the modern workplace.
Job offer revoked because of safety concerns
In July 2007, Coca-Cola hired Mark Kogut as a machine operator in its Northampton bottling plant. The position was temporary, but after six months, Kogut’s supervisor suggested that he apply for a full-time position. Kogut took the advice, and based on his supervisor’s recommendation, Coca-Cola offered him a full-time job conditioned on him passing a postoffer physical exam, drug and alcohol screen, and criminal background check. However, during the physical exam, he disclosed that he is blind in his left eye. Coca-Cola promptly rescinded the job offer.
Kogut filed a disability discrimination charge with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD), which took up his case. Coca-Cola argued that driving a forklift was an essential function of the machine operator position and that it was lawful to revoke the job offer because Kogut’s disability prevented him from performing that function safely. However, the MCAD hearing commissioner rejected both of those arguments. In a recent opinion, MCAD affirmed the hearing commissioner’s decision and awarded Kogut $45,636 in back wages, $75,000 for emotional distress damages, and nearly $83,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs.
What about the risk to worker safety?
You might be sitting there with your mouth hanging open, wondering how MCAD could possibly fault Coca-Cola for refusing to allow a guy who is blind in one eye to operate any type of heavy machinery with other employees nearby. You might be asking, “What about the safety of my workers? If I can’t consider workplace safety when making hiring decisions, how can I possibly maintain a safe work environment? And where does it end? What if the guy had only one hand or one leg?”
That is where President Roosevelt comes in. Right now, you are making the very same mistake Coca-Cola made. Indeed, MCAD did not fault the company for refusing to hire Kogut. The commission faulted Coca-Cola because it made the decision based on nothing more than fear without first taking steps to make sure its fear was justified and the risks were unavoidable. And while it is hard to admit, MCAD actually got it right in this case.
Indeed, Coca-Cola did nothing to determine whether Kogut’s vision impairment really made him incapable of operating a forklift in a safe manner. In fact, Coca-Cola did absolutely nothing at all. The managers who made the decision to revoke the job offer did not talk to Kogut about his abilities or limitations. They did not talk to his supervisor, the plant manager, or anyone else who worked with him to get their take on how his impairment affected his performance. They did not even consider whether a reasonable accommodation could have been made. Instead, Coca-Cola ignored its obligation to engage in the interactive process and made a rash decision based on a knee-jerk, fear-based reaction to the idea of an employee who is blind in one eye operating heavy machinery with other employees nearby.
Takeaways
The regulations to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) are very specific on this issue, and MCAD’s decision follows the regulations to the letter. An employer may determine that a disabled applicant is not qualified for a job based on a conclusion that he poses a direct threat to the health or safety of himself or others. However, that conclusion must be based on (1) “an individualized assessment of the individual’s present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job” and (2) “a reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge and/or on the best available objective evidence.” Furthermore, a direct threat disqualifies an applicant only if it cannot be eliminated or reduced by a reasonable accommodation.
So the next time you feel yourself getting nervous about hiring a candidate with a disability, remember Roosevelt’s warning. The only thing you should be nervous about is your own fear, so do not allow it to be your downfall. You are not a doctor, and your fear that an applicant’s disability could create a safety hazard is probably based more on what you don’t know than on what you do know.
Put that fear aside and educate yourself. Talk to the candidate. Learn about his disabling condition and how it could affect his ability to perform the essential functions of the position. Collect the medical evidence you need to make an informed decision. If you conclude that the candidate’s condition would present a “direct threat of substantial harm” in your workplace, consider whether the threat can be eliminated by an accommodation of some kind. That way, you can overcome your fear and “convert retreat into advance.”
Erica E. Flores is an associate at the firm of Skoler, Abbott & Presser, P.C. She can be reached at 413-737-4753 or eflores@skoler-abbott.com.