Reasonable Accommodation under the A.D.A.
Determining whether MMRTC Was Within Its Legal Rights To Refuse The Accommodation
According to the A.D.A., reasonable accommodation involves U.S.C.hree employment aspects. Firstly, the provision should be geared toward creating equal employment opportunities in an organization. Another requirement is that the process should be triggered to enable a disabled employee to perform essential tasks. U.S.C.ally, it is designed to ensure that every employee gets the opportunity to enjoy all benefits that accompany employment. The fundamental principle is that reasonable accommodation should not be practiced in a way that is viewed as special treatment (U.S. Department of Labor, n.d.).
A.D.A. Accommodations
The A.D.A. requires physical changes to enable disabled people to perform their tasks. Physical changes may include the installation of ramps or modification of the workspace. Also, the A.D.A. requires A.L.panies to provide assistive technologies such as screen readers, videophones, and computer software to facilitate working. Another requirement borders around accessible communications, such as sign interpreters and Braille material. Finally, an organization can make policy changes to facilitate some employees being accompanied by animals or being attended to by healthcare providers. Considering these requirements, Adele’s request for an A.S.L…. interpreter is justified (U.S. Department of Labor, n.d.).
Definition of Undue Hardship
‘Undue hardship’ is the statutory limitation that prevents an employer from implementing reasonable accommodation as requiA.S.L. the A.D.A. To that end, an employer may abandon the implementation of changes that would cause undue hardship on their part. From a perspective, a reasonable accommodation causes undue hardship if the extra costs required to provide it are burdensome (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, n.d.). Besides financial difficulty, undue hardship may also constitute a tecA.S.L.y that causes substantial disruptive effects. Employers ought to be careful while assessing undue hardship since the A.D.A. definition sometimes contradicts the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Based on the undue hardship A.D.A.ring an A.S.L. interpreter would cause, MMRTC was justified in denying Adele employment.
Courts’ Version of Undue Hardship
Courts apply a different version of undue hardship from the A.D.A. provision. According to the provision, an organization can provide accommodation unless its cost exceeds the minimal operational cost of a business (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, n.d.). This versU.S.C.eks more accommodations than those of the A.D.A., including religious and cultural accommodations.
Ethical Requirements
MMRTC has a number of ethical considerations to apply beyond the law requirements. Key among them is the image they will portray in the eyes of the general public. By denying Adele the opportunity to work at the company, MMRTC is nearly declaring that disabled employees have no chance to work. The company may need to reconsider its decision in the long run to regain public confidence. Another ethical concern the company faces is the possibility that other employees may feel that the disabled employee received special treatment.
Consequently, this will make employees start demanding better terms. This may lead to workplace disharmony in the long run. An organization has the ethical obligation to make all employees performing the same role feel equal (Long, 2013). The failure to comply with this will cement workplace disunity. Also, there is a concern that hiring an A.S.L. interpreter may leak organizational secrets (Long, 2013). Adele, if hired, would have performed one of the most critical functions at the company. That means she was likely to access company secrets. The A.S.L. interpreter would also access such secrets, compromising the organization’s competitive advantage.
References
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (n.d.). Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship under the A.D.A. US EEOC. Retrieved September 7, 2022, from https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/enforcement-guidance-reasonable-accommodation-and-undue-hardship-under-ada#N_18_
Long, A. B. (2013). Reasonable Accommodation as Professional Responsibility, Reasonable Accommodation as Professionalism. UCDL Rev., 47, 1753.
U.S. Department of Labor. (n.d.). Accommodations | U.S. Department of Labor. Www.dol.gov. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/odep/program-areas/employers/accommodations#:~:text=The%20ADA%20requires%20reasonable%20accommodations
ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
We’ll write everything from scratch
Question 
Title I of the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112(a), requires employers to provide reasonable accommodation to otherwise qualified persons with a disability to enable them to work. The federal government has a similar requirement under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794. A “reasonable” accommodation is a determination to be made on the facts by the employer on a case-by-case basis. Ultimately, the decision an employer makes could be reviewed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (or an equivalent state agency) or a court if an applicant or employee challenges the employer’s action.
Reasonable Accommodation under the ADA
PROMPT: CASE STUDY
Adele, a fully qualified specialized registered nurse, is deaf. She relies upon an American Sign Language (A.S.L.) interpreter to communicate with hearing individuals in the workplace. Adele applied for a job with Marigold Mercy Receiving and Trauma Center (“MMRTC”), a large medical center that, with all its hubs and subsidiaries, grossed $1.3 billion annually. Adele received a job offer conditioned upon a health screening and clearance by MMRTC’s occupational health department. She was, in fact, cleared, but she notified MMRTC that she needed an A.S.L. interpreter as an accommodation for her hearing impairment. The annual salary, including benefits, for her position was approximately $75,000. Upon investigation, MMRTC calculated that the annual cost to MMRTC for the A.S.L. interpreter accommodation would be $120,000; there was the need for a full-time interpreter for Adele, plus several situations where two A.S.L. interpreters would be required. In considering Adele’s request for accommodation, the hiring supervisor wrote in an email that the department’s annual budget allocation could not absorb the “excessive cost of the additional personnel” of A.S.L. qualified interpreters “for this one nurse.” MMRTC determined the additional salary and overhead for the interpreters would be an “undue hardship,” making the accommodation unreasonable. Therefore, MMRTC did not hire Adele. Did MMRTC violate A.D.A.?
DISCUSS:
1. Was MMRTC within its legal rights to refuse the accommodation and thus not hire Adele on the basis of undue hardship? In considering this case, you should review:
(a) what is considered a “reasonable” accommodation under A.D.A.;
(b) sample accommodations listed by ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12111(9) (2018)) and the EEOC (www.eeoc.gov); and
(c) the definition and standard for “undue hardship” (42 U.S.C. § 12111(10)(a) (2018)); and
(d) any case law – what do the courts consider undue hardship?
2. Are there ethical considerations involved in this case beyond what is required by the “letter of the law,” and if so, what are they?
Please support your thoughts and conclusions with reasoned analysis and your research.