 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Trujillo v. Northern Rio Arriba Electric Cooperative12/6/2001
y 9; this testimony was relevant to the issue of whether Mr. Trujillo suffered from a medical condition. Again, however, even viewing this testimony in a light most favorable to Mr. Trujillo, this testimony established nothing more than a temporary illness rather than a medical condition protected by the Human Rights Act.
2. Failure to Accommodate.
NORA also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for the claim of failure to accommodate. Under the Human Rights Act, it is an unlawful discriminatory practice for an employer "to refuse or fail to accommodate to an individual's physical or mental handicap or medical condition, unless such accommodation is unreasonable or an undue hardship." Section 28-1-7(J). It appears that the accommodation claim was based on Mr. Trujillo's doctor having issued a certificate to return to work for "half time for one month."
NORA argues that the certificate was inadequate to put it on notice that Mr. Trujillo was requesting an accommodation under the Human Rights Act. Mr. Trujillo responds that NORA should have known about his medical condition and thus regarded the medical release for half-time work as a request for accommodation. Mr. Trujillo accuses NORA of acting in bad faith for refusing to engage in an interactive process to determine whether the alleged condition could be reasonably accommodated. Mr. Trujillo relies upon Smith v. Midland Brake, Inc., 180 F.3d 1154, 1172 n.10 (10th Cir. 1999), for this proposition. However, we do not read Midland to support such a claim, and we are unpersuaded by this argument. We note the Court in that opinion made the following observation:
In general, the interactive process must ordinarily begin with the employee providing notice to the employer of the employee's disability and any resulting limitations, and expressing a desire for reassignment if no reasonable accommodation is possible in the employee's existing job . Midland at 1171-72 (footnote omitted).
In so concluding, the Court relied upon Beck v. University of Wisconsin Board of Regents, 75 F.3d 1130, 1134 (7th Cir. 1996), which stated that " n employee has the initial duty to inform the employer of a disability before ADA liability may be triggered for failure to provide accommodations." Midland, 180 F.3d at 1171 n.9. Although the certificate did ask for a reduction in Mr. Trujillo's hours, it did not offer a diagnosis of his illness and how it limited his ability to work, or suggest any accommodation that his illness might require. Under the facts of this case, the terse language of the return to work certificate was insufficient to put NORA on notice that Mr. Trujillo was requesting an accommodation for a medical condition under the Human Rights Act. We agree with the Fifth Circuit that an employer cannot be held to have imputed knowledge of an illness in the following circumstance:
Where the disability, resulting limitations, and necessary reasonable accommodations, are not open, obvious, and apparent to the employer, as is often the case when mental disabilities are involved, the initial burden rests primarily upon the employee, or his health-care provider, to specifically identify the disability and resulting limitations, and to suggest the reasonable accommodations. Taylor v. Principal Fin. Group, Inc., 93 F.3d 155, 165 (5th Cir. 1996).
Moreover, the failure to accommodate claim must fail because, as discussed above, Mr. Trujillo failed to demonstrate that he had a medical condition which is a necessary predicate for an accommodation request.
3. Discharge Because of Medical Condition.
Even if we were to conclude that Mr. Trujillo had a medical condition
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 New Mexico Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|