This employee developed a pattern of poor attendance. His supervisors warned him verbally and in writing, following to the letter the hospital’s policy set out in the employee handbook for taking disciplinary measures for unscheduled absences. The court went to some lengths to show how the hospital had bent over backward to tolerate this employee’s conduct. His probationary period was extended twice, he got counseling and he was explicitly threatened with termination. Eventually he was fired.

   He filed charges of disability discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. That agency issued a "right to sue" letter, meaning that the agency’s investigation indicated there were probable grounds for a valid disability discrimination claim against the hospital. When the suit came before the District Court, however, the District Court dismissed the case and exonerated the hospital from blame.

   To decide the case, the court used what is now the nationally-accepted standard for analyzing employment discrimination cases. First, was this employee an individual with a disability. Yes, he was. Second, was adverse employment action action taken against him. Yes, it was. Third, was he treated less favorably than a non-disabled person. Yes, he was. At this preliminary point in the analysis, this case seemed to favor the employee.

   However, at this point the employer is entitled to fend off charges of discrimination if it has proof of a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse action taken against a disabled employee. In this case, the hospital had clearly defined its policies for what was unacceptably poor attendance and had carefully prepared documentation how this employee had not met the hospital’s reasonable expectations.

   An employee with a disability must still be qualified for the position despite the disability. As the court phrased it, an unacceptable pattern of excessive unexcused absences means the employee, even if there is a genuine disability, is not otherwise qualified for the position. The law says the employee must be otherwise qualified for the position despite the disability, to benefit from the anti-discrimination laws.

   In general terms, an employee with a disability can in some cases become qualified for a position by the position itself being modified to suit the employee’s disability. This is what the law refers to as reasonably accommodation.

   In this case, however, the court ruled that a hospital does not have to provide an employee, disabled or not, with the option of working a "flexible" rather than fixed job schedule. For a hospital, that would not be reasonable. The court said a hospital’s fundamental responsibility is its patients’ care needs.

   In addition, the court noted that an employee with a disability who wishes the employer to accommodate the disability must inform the employer of the disability and must indicate what steps the employee wants the employer to take by way of reasonable accommodation. Then the employee and employer must work together to see if the requested accommodation is reasonable and feasible.