It's FREE!

Create a Profile and Start Networking with HR Professionals
Register Now - It's Free Registration info
Member Content
Blogs | Questions | Files | Events | HR Groups | Members
PHR/SPHR Exam Prep Course
HRCI Recertification

  • Upcoming Events
  • Past Events
  • Public Events

More Webcasts

Upcoming Webcast
5th August 2014, 2:00 PM

The Personal Excellence App by

Upcoming Webcast
6th August 2014, 10:00 AM

Contractor Safety Considerations

More Virtual Conferences

Live Conference
29 July - 30 July 2014 - In Progress

Rewards and Recognition

Upcoming Conference
13 August - 14 August 2014

Social Media and Employee Communications

My Events
View and edit your current events.
Add Event

Click the "add event" button to create a listing for your event

Advertise Here


Posted by Bray, Kathleen at Monday, 11/19/2012 9:17 am
  • Currently 2.8/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 from 9 votes
Alliant Energy was sued by a former employee for disability discrimination, based on the unwillingness of the employer to allow the employee to maintain a regular shift that would assist in control of his diabetes. The Court determined that a rotating shift can be an essential function of a position, as in this instance, since it could enhance experiences in training and allow them to handle emergencies more effectively in a broad geographic area. It also enhances the non-work life of all employees by spreading the less desirable shifts among all of them. In addition to looking at written job descriptions, the Court determined that among other factors are: (1) the employer’s judgment as to what functions are essential; (2) the amount of time spent on the job performing the function; (3) the consequence of not requiring the employee to perform the function; (4) the terms of the collective bargaining agreement; (5) the work experience of past employees on the job; and (6) the current work experience of employees in similar jobs. The Court found the function of split shifts to be an essential function and further agreed with the employer that its attempt to find an offering of another position was a reasonable accommodation. In regards to engaging in an interactive process to determine a reasonable accommodation, the Court noted that it is not per se violation under the ADA if the employer fails to engage in interactive process, but the failure of an employer to engage in the process is prima facie evidence that the employer may be acting in bad faith. Kallail v. Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc. (8th Cir. 2012).

Sitemap   |   Advertise With Us