Michigan ADA
|
HR
Management |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I’ve heard that under federal and Michigan law, employers must make “reasonable accommodations” for disabled employees. What does that mean?
We all remember what it was like before the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. In those days, businesses and government agencies had no obligation to make sure that their workplaces were accessible to disabled employees. Even a ramp or a curb could make a building inaccessible. But with the coming of the ADA, employers must make what are called “reasonable accommodations” to assure that disabled workers have access to the workplace.
But what constitutes “reasonable” in the “reasonable accommodation” formula? There’s no single answer covering all situations. It will vary from one workplace to another, and from one employer to another.The best way to approach the question is through some examples.
Let’s assume you, as an employer, need to install a wheelchair ramp to make your workplace accessible. The cost may be less than $400, clearly a “reasonable accommodation.” But now let’s assume that you rent a 4th floor office in an ancient city building. Accessibility might require installing an elevator in a building you do not even own, at a cost exceeding $20,000. Courts would be unlikely to deem that expense a “reasonable accommodation.”
The owner of the building, on he other hand, would probably be required to install an elevator when he or she decides to renovate the structure.
Or assume that you own a business with a staff of salespeople. Customarily, your salespeople would drive their own cars to appointments with clients and you would reimburse them for their mileage. Now if you had a salesperson who could not drive because of epilepsy, a “reasonable accommodation” might be to pay him or her the bus or taxi fare to client appointments – even if that exceeded the cost of mileage reimbursement slightly. But hiring a limousine and personal driver to be on call for that worker would obviously not be a “reasonable accommodation.” JH
This entry was posted
on Friday, October 19th, 2007 at 7:52 pm and is filed under
Hiring and Staffing, Human Resources Management.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Leave a Reply
-
Ask a Question
Categories
- Attendance Management (1013)
- Benefits (1495)
- Compensation (1584)
- Employment Training (308)
- Hiring and Staffing (800)
- Human Resources Management (2726)
- Labor Laws (1097)
- Management / Leadership Development (339)
- Performance Management (207)
- Structural Development (41)
- Termination (554)
- Workplace Health & Safety (256)
- Workplace Management (424)
Blogroll
Archives
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
Recent Posts
-
How many hours must be accrued to be eligible
March 18th, 2010 -
fmla for child
March 18th, 2010 -
HR confidentiality
March 18th, 2010 -
smoke breaks
March 17th, 2010 -
Payment of vacation and sick leave upon employee quitting
March 17th, 2010 -
PTO Plan — Discriminatory?
March 17th, 2010 -
Personnel Files
March 17th, 2010
Pages