EEOC V CONVERGYS CUSTOMER MANAGEMENT GR
Derek Brown
Professor Janet Smith
Employment Law BA370
1 August 2011
EEOC V. CONVERGYS CUSTOMER MANAGEMENT GROUP The legal issue in this case is the EEOC alleges Convergys failed to accommodate Demirelli's disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). At District Court, the jury found for the plaintiffs (EEOC and Demirelli), in that Convergys was in violation of the ADA and did not provide reasonable accommodations, even though Demirelli did request to have extra time to return from lunch, in which Convergys denied. The district court denied Convergys's motion for judgment as a matter of law. In the Court of Appeals, Convergys argued an employer cannot be held liable for failing to accommodate a disabled employee who has not requested a specific, reasonable accommodation, however, the Court disagreed. The employee's duty under the interactive process is to make the employer aware of the need for an accommodation and provide any details concerning his disability so that the employer will understand the nature of the disability and why the employee needs an accommodation. It is then up to the employer to make a reasonable effort to determine the appropriate accommodation. Convergys also argued the requested accommodation was unreasonable because punctuality is an essential job function, but the Court too disagreed. A reasonable accommodation allows for the extra flexibility and support to which qualified individuals with disabilities are entitled by employers as long as making the accommodation does not cause the employer undue hardship (that is , making facilities accessible to and usable by disabled persons, devising part-time or modified work schedules, or acquiring or modifying equipment or devices). The Court also felt an additional 15 minutes would not eliminate Convergys punctuality requirement. It would of merely created a different time requirement for Demirelli to return from lunch. Moreover, the ADA provided that a
Professor Janet Smith
Employment Law BA370
1 August 2011
EEOC V. CONVERGYS CUSTOMER MANAGEMENT GROUP The legal issue in this case is the EEOC alleges Convergys failed to accommodate Demirelli's disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). At District Court, the jury found for the plaintiffs (EEOC and Demirelli), in that Convergys was in violation of the ADA and did not provide reasonable accommodations, even though Demirelli did request to have extra time to return from lunch, in which Convergys denied. The district court denied Convergys's motion for judgment as a matter of law. In the Court of Appeals, Convergys argued an employer cannot be held liable for failing to accommodate a disabled employee who has not requested a specific, reasonable accommodation, however, the Court disagreed. The employee's duty under the interactive process is to make the employer aware of the need for an accommodation and provide any details concerning his disability so that the employer will understand the nature of the disability and why the employee needs an accommodation. It is then up to the employer to make a reasonable effort to determine the appropriate accommodation. Convergys also argued the requested accommodation was unreasonable because punctuality is an essential job function, but the Court too disagreed. A reasonable accommodation allows for the extra flexibility and support to which qualified individuals with disabilities are entitled by employers as long as making the accommodation does not cause the employer undue hardship (that is , making facilities accessible to and usable by disabled persons, devising part-time or modified work schedules, or acquiring or modifying equipment or devices). The Court also felt an additional 15 minutes would not eliminate Convergys punctuality requirement. It would of merely created a different time requirement for Demirelli to return from lunch. Moreover, the ADA provided that a