Case Analysis _ John & Acme

Rock$tarGirl

John_ADA.pdf

Home >Human Resource Management homework help >Case Analysis _ John & Acme

ADA and Rehabilitation Act protection means that, generally, as long as the applicant or

employee is otherwise qualified for the position, with or without reasonable accommodation, the

employer is prohibited from making any adverse employment decision solely on the basis of the

disability. (Bennet-Alexander & Hartman, 2012, p.568)

To prove his Prima Facie case John must establish that 1) he is disabled, 2) he is qualified

for the position he works 3) His accommodations were reasonable; reduced work hours 4) he

suffered an adverse employment decision, in his case termination. In John’s case, he can

establish all of the above and sue ACME alleging wrongful termination under the ADA.

In their defense, ACME can quote Legal Non-Discriminatory Reason for John’s

termination. ACME must establish that the employment action was taken for a reason other than

disability discrimination. LNDRs might include the employee’s poor performance or economic

necessity. (Bennet 590) In the given scenario, both of these reasons are applicable. Due to

economic necessity, ACME was forced to reduce its workforce. They did performance appraisal

of all managerial employees and discharged only those with the lowest performance ratings. That

John fell in that category is a coincidence. It might have been because of his reduced hours, but

they surveyed all managerial employees and it’s possible there were others who had reduced

hours just like John. The company could also defend itself showing company guidelines which

state that they do not consider performance pro-rata based on hours worked during appraisals but

the performance in general. And hence, John was not singled out due to his performance.

It cannot be ruled out that were “mixed motives” to fire John, especially because his

supervisor might have already formed an attitude toward him after discovering the non-

prescribed prescription drugs in his cabinet. “In these so-called mixed-motives cases, employees

historically have been required only to establish that discrimination was one of the motivating

This study source was downloaded by 100000773306754 from CourseHero.com on 08-06-2021 17:03:35 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/46799127/CASE-ANALYSIS-PAPER-BAdocx/

Th is

stu dy

re so

ur ce

w as

sh ar

ed v

ia C

ou rs

eH er

o. co

factors. In the summer of 2009, however, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Gross v. FBL Financial

Servs., Inc., raised the ante on employees in age discrimination cases by ruling that they had to

prove that the employment action would not have taken place but for the discrimination.

In 2010, in Serwatka v. Rockwell Automation Inc., the Seventh Circuit ruled that the

language of the ADA and the ADEA (the Age Discrimination in Employment Act) were similar

enough to justify extending the Gross analysis to disability discrimination cases.” (Bennet-

Alexander & Hartman, 2012, p. 588) The Seventh Circuit court ordered judgment in favor of the

employer and held that on the grounds on the Gross decision, mixed motives case no longer

existed under the ADA. Based on the above precedents, John may not prevail in his lawsuit

against ACME.

With that said, if John can prove that the company has no published guidelines stating they won’t

pro-rating performance based on hours worked during appraisals, John may still have a chance

and sue ACME alleging wrongful termination under the ADA