{"id":145,"date":"2010-08-01T18:47:20","date_gmt":"2010-08-02T01:47:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/washingtonlaborlawblog.com\/?p=145"},"modified":"2010-08-01T18:47:20","modified_gmt":"2010-08-02T01:47:20","slug":"accommodating-disabilities-affecting-ability-commute","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/tahomalaw.com\/?p=145","title":{"rendered":"Accommodating Disabilities Affecting the Ability to Commute"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>Two recent cases show that employers must consider accommodating employees with disabilities affecting the ability to commute.<\/p>\n

In Colwell v. Rite Aid<\/em><\/a>, a cashier became blind in one eye, which made it difficult and dangerous for her to drive at night.\u00a0 Colwell sued for failure to accommodate her disability when Rite Aid refused to schedule her for only day shifts.\u00a0 The trial court concluded \u00a0that Rite Aid had no duty to accommodate Colwell\u2019s limitations concerning her commute because the Americans with Disabilities Act was designed to only cover an employee\u2019s ability to work in the workplace<\/em>.\u00a0 The Third Circuit disagreed.\u00a0 It wrote:<\/p>\n

\u2026 we hold as a matter of law that changing Colwell\u2019s working schedule to day shifts in order to alleviate her disability-related difficulties in getting to work is a type of accommodation that the ADA contemplates.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

On July 21st<\/sup>, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reached the same result in a similar case.\u00a0 In Livingston v. Fred Meyer Stores<\/em><\/a>, a wine steward with a vision impairment that affected her ability to see after dark asked for a modified schedule during the fall and winter to minimize after dark driving.\u00a0 \u00a0She was discharged after she refused to work her scheduled late shift.<\/p>\n

Following Colwell<\/em>, the Ninth Circuit said that an employer has a duty to accommodate an employee\u2019s limitations that affect the ability to get to and from work.<\/p>\n

These cases make clear that employers should consider modifying an employee\u2019s schedule when a disability is affecting the employee\u2019s ability to commute.\u00a0 Just how far the duty to accommodate commuting issues extends, though, is unclear.\u00a0 For example, what if an employer has multiple locations in an area and the employee has a long commute.\u00a0 Must the employer consider transferring the employee to a location closer to home if the employee has an impairment that limits the amount of time that can be spent driving?\u00a0 Does it matter if there is public transportation the employee could use?<\/p>\n

We will have to wait for other cases to understand the full scope of an employer\u2019s duty.\u00a0 For now, employers faced with accommodation requests concerning commuting should consider whether the accommodation is a reasonable one and whether providing it would cause the employer an undue hardship.<\/p>\n

(Photo Courtesy of FreeFoto.com)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Two recent cases show that employers must consider accommodating employees with disabilities affecting the ability to commute. In Colwell v. Rite Aid, a cashier became blind in one eye, which made it difficult and dangerous for her to drive at night.\u00a0 Colwell sued for failure to accommodate her disability when Rite Aid refused to schedule … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Accommodating Disabilities Affecting the Ability to Commute”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,5,16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-145","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-americans-with-disabilities-act","category-disability","category-reasonable-accommodation"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/tahomalaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/145","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/tahomalaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/tahomalaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tahomalaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tahomalaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=145"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/tahomalaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/145\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/tahomalaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=145"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tahomalaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=145"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tahomalaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=145"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}