MC Qu. 30 Kielyn has a degenerative eye disease that is causing her to gradually lose her eyesight. When Kielyn asked her employer, Ideal Accessories, to purchase a low-vision computer for her use at work, she was fired. Ideal Accessories has violated the
Occupational Safety and Health Act.
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Americans with Disabilities Act.
Family and Medical Leave Act.
The Correct Answer and Explanation is:
Correct answer:
Ideal Accessories has violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Explanation:
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a comprehensive civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in various areas, including employment. Under the ADA, employers are required to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified employees with disabilities to enable them to perform their job duties effectively, unless doing so would cause undue hardship to the employer.
In this case, Kielyn has a degenerative eye disease, which qualifies as a disability because it substantially limits her ability to see, a major life activity. When Kielyn requested a low-vision computer, she was essentially asking for a reasonable accommodation to help her continue performing her job tasks despite her visual impairment.
Firing Kielyn after her accommodation request constitutes discrimination under the ADA for several reasons:
- Protection against discrimination: The ADA protects employees with disabilities from adverse employment actions like firing, demotion, or harassment that result solely from their disability or their request for accommodation.
- Reasonable accommodation requirement: Employers must engage in an interactive process with employees to find suitable accommodations that allow them to perform essential job functions. Providing a low-vision computer is generally considered a reasonable accommodation for someone with visual impairments.
- Undue hardship exception: The employer is only excused from providing accommodations if it can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose significant difficulty or expense on its operations. Simply firing the employee without exploring accommodation options does not meet this standard.
By firing Kielyn for asking for a low-vision computer, Ideal Accessories failed to fulfill its legal obligation under the ADA. Kielyn could potentially file a discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which enforces the ADA, and may be entitled to remedies such as reinstatement, back pay, and damages.
This case illustrates the importance of employers understanding their responsibilities under disability law and the rights of employees to reasonable accommodations to maintain equal access and opportunity in the workplace. Employers who fail to comply with the ADA risk legal consequences and damage to their reputation.