Vande Zande v. State of Wis Dept of Admin
Vande Zande v. State of Wis Dept of Admin
3d 538 (1995)
133 A.L.R. Fed. 713, 63 USLW 2459, 3 A.D. Cases 1636, 8 A.D.D. 159, 6 NDLR P 27
44 F.3d 538
United States Court of Appeals,
Seventh Circuit.
Lori L. VANDE ZANDE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT
OF ADMINISTRATION, James R. Klauser,
Lee Martinson, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 94-1884. | Argued Oct.
5, 1994. | Decided Jan. 5, 1995.
Civil Rights
What Are Reasonable
Accommodations; Factors Considered
For purposes of ADA section defining
discrimination to include employer's not
making reasonable accommodations to
the known physical or mental limitations
of an otherwise qualified individual with
disability, accommodation means that
employer must be willing to consider
making changes in its ordinary work rules,
facilities, terms, and conditions to enable
disabled individual to work. Americans
With Disabilities Act of 1990, 102(b)(5)
(A), 42 U.S.C.A. 12112(b)(5)(A).
Affirmed.
[3]
[1]
Civil Rights
Discrimination by Reason of
Handicap, Disability, or Illness
Civil Rights
In General; Elements of
Accommodation Claims
To a great extent, employment provisions
of ADA merely generalize to the
economy as a whole the duties, including
that of reasonable accommodation, that
regulations issued by Equal Employment
Civil Rights
What Are Reasonable
Accommodations; Factors Considered
Unrelated, inefficacious change is not
accommodation of disability within
meaning of ADA section defining
discrimination to include employer's not
making reasonable accommodations to
the known physical or mental limitations
of an otherwise qualified individual with
disability. Americans With Disabilities
Act of 1990, 102(b)(5)(A), 42 U.S.C.A.
12112(b)(5)(A).
14 Cases that cite this headnote
[4]
Negligence
Reasonable Care
In the law of negligence, in deciding what
care is reasonable, court considers the cost
of increased care.
Civil Rights
What Are Reasonable
Accommodations; Factors Considered
Under ADA, financial condition of
employer is only one consideration
in determining whether accommodation
otherwise reasonable would impose
undue hardship. Americans With
Disabilities Act of 1990, 101(10)(B)(ii,
iii), 42 U.S.C.A. 12111(10)(B)(ii, iii).
24 Cases that cite this headnote
[6]
Civil Rights
What Are Reasonable
Accommodations; Factors Considered
Civil Rights
Impairments in General; Major Life
Activities
Civil Rights
Particular Conditions, Limitations,
and Impairments
Paraplegic's pressure ulcers, which her
paralysis made her prone to develop and
whose treatment often required her to stay
at home for several weeks, were part of
paraplegic's disability and, therefore, a
part of what her state employer had duty
to accommodate reasonably under ADA.
Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990,
102(b)(5)(A), 42 U.S.C.A. 12112(b)
(5)(A).
16 Cases that cite this headnote
[10]
Civil Rights
What Are Reasonable
Accommodations; Factors Considered
Generally, employer is not required to
accommodate disability under ADA by
allowing disabled worker to work, by
himself, without supervision, at home.
Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990,
Civil Rights
What Are Reasonable
Accommodations; Factors Considered
Generally under ADA, employer is not
required to allow disabled workers to
work at home where their productivity
inevitably would be greatly reduced,
but as with any generalization about
so complex and varied an activity as
employment, there are exceptions, but it
would take very extraordinary case for
employee to be able to create triable
issue of employer's failure to allow
employee to work at home. Americans
With Disabilities Act of 1990, 102(b)(5)
(A), 42 U.S.C.A. 12112(b)(5)(A).
Civil Rights
What Are Reasonable
Accommodations; Factors Considered
If employer, because it is government
agency and therefore is not under intense
competitive pressure to minimize its labor
costs or maximize value of its output,
or for some other reason, bends over
backwards to accommodate the disabled
employee and goes further than the
law requires by allowing employee to
work at home, employer must not be
punished for its generosity by being
deemed to have conceded reasonableness
of so far reaching an accommodation
under ADA for that would hurt rather than
help disabled workers. Americans With
Disabilities Act of 1990, 102(b)(5)(A),
42 U.S.C.A. 12112(b)(5)(A).
46 Cases that cite this headnote
[13]
Civil Rights
Particular Cases
Civil Rights
What Are Reasonable
Accommodations; Factors Considered
Civil Rights
Retrospective Application
ADA is not retroactive. Americans With
Disabilities Act of 1990, 2 et seq., 42
U.S.C.A. 12101 et seq.
11 Cases that cite this headnote
[16]
Civil Rights
What Are Reasonable
Accommodations; Factors Considered
Under ADA, employer does not have
duty to expend even modest amounts of
money to bring about absolute identity in
working conditions between disabled and
nondisabled workers. Americans With
Disabilities Act of 1990, 2 et seq., 42
U.S.C.A. 12101 et seq.
Civil Rights
What Are Reasonable
Accommodations; Factors Considered
It was not legal duty of employer under
ADA to provide access to kitchen sink
which was 36 inches high, too high
for state employee in wheelchair, when
access to equivalent bathroom sink which
was convenient height for person in
wheelchair and conveniently located was
provided. Americans With Disabilities
Act of 1980, 2 et seq., 42 U.S.C.A.
12101 et seq.
8 Cases that cite this headnote
[18]
Civil Rights
What Are Reasonable
Accommodations; Factors Considered
Duty of reasonable accommodation under
ADA is satisfied when employer does
what is necessary to enable disabled
worker to work in reasonable comfort.
Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990,
102(b)(5)(A), 42 U.S.C.A. 12112(b)
(5)(A).
23 Cases that cite this headnote
[19]
Civil Rights
Discrimination by Reason of
Handicap, Disability, or Illness
Under ADA, no inference of unlawful
discrimination against paraplegic state
employee could be drawn from
employer's reasonable and more than
reasonable unnecessary accommodations,
from employer's refusal to honor
employee's requests for unreasonable
accommodation,
and
from
her
supervisor's response cut me some slack
to employee's complaint on first day of
move into new building that bathrooms
lacked adequate supplies; supervisor
meant that it would take a few days to
iron out bugs inevitable in any major
move and was clearly reasonable request
in the circumstances. Americans With
Disabilities Act of 1990, 2 et seq., 42
U.S.C.A. 12101 et seq.
7 Cases that cite this headnote
Civil Rights
Practices Prohibited or Required in
General; Elements
Civil Rights
Discrimination by Reason of
Handicap, Disability, or Illness
and
Opinion
POSNER, Chief Judge.
In 1990, Congress passed the Americans with
Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. The stated
purpose is to provide a clear and comprehensive
national mandate for the elimination of discrimination
against individuals with disabilities, said by Congress
to be 43 million in number and growing.
12101(a), (b)(1). Disability is broadly defined. It
includes not only a physical or mental impairment
that substantially limits one or more of the major
life activities of [the disabled] individual, but
also the state of being regarded as having such
an impairment. 12102(2)(A), (C). The latter
definition, although at first glance peculiar, actually
makes a better fit with the elaborate preamble to
the Act, in which people who have physical or
mental impairments are compared to victims of
racial and other invidious discrimination. Many such
impairments are not in fact disabling but are believed
to be so, and the people having them may be denied
employment or otherwise shunned as a consequence.
Such people, objectively capable of performing as well
as the unimpaired, are analogous to capable workers
discriminated against because of their skin color or
some other vocationally irrelevant characteristic. (The
Act is not limited to employment discrimination, but
such discrimination, addressed by Subchapter I of the
Act, is the only kind at issue in this case and we limit
our discussion accordingly.)
The more problematic case is that of an individual who
has a vocationally relevant disability-an impairment
such as blindness or paralysis that limits a major
human capability, such as seeing or walking. In the
common case in which such an impairment interferes
with the individual's ability to perform up to the
standards of the workplace, or increases the cost
of employing him, hiring and firing decisions based
on the impairment are not discriminatory in a
sense closely analogous to employment discrimination
on racial grounds. The draftsmen of the Act knew
[19]
[20] In addition to making these specific
complaints of failure of reasonable accommodation,
Vande Zande argues that the defendants displayed
a pattern of insensitivity or discrimination. She
relies on a number of minor incidents, such as
her supervisor's response, Cut me some slack,
to her complaint on the first day on which the
housing division moved into the new building that
the bathrooms lacked adequate supplies. He meant
that it would take a few days to iron out the bugs
inevitable in any major move. It was clearly a
reasonable request in the circumstances; and given all
the accommodations that Vande Zande acknowledges
the defendants made to her disability, a pattern of
insensitivity or discrimination is hard to discern.
But the more fundamental point is that there is no
separate offense under the Americans with Disabilities
Act called engaging in a pattern of insensitivity or
[16]
[17]
[18] Apparently it would have cost discrimination. The word pattern does not appear
in the employment subchapter, and the Act is not
only about $150 to lower the sink on Vande Zande's
modeled on RICO. As in other cases of discrimination,
floor; to lower it on all the floors might have cost
a plaintiff can ask the trier of fact to draw an inference
as much as $2,000, though possibly less. Given
of discrimination from a pattern of behavior when each
the proximity of the bathroom sink, Vande Zande
individual act making up that pattern might have an
can hardly complain that the inaccessibility of the
innocent explanation. The whole can be greater than
kitchenette sink interfered with her ability to work or
the sum of the parts. But in this case all we have
with her physical comfort. Her argument rather is that
in the way of a pattern is that the employer made a
forcing her to use the bathroom sink for activities (such
number of reasonable and some more than reasonableas washing out her coffee cup) for which the other
unnecessary-accommodations, and turned down only
employees could use the kitchenette sink stigmatized
requests for unreasonable accommodations. From such
her as different and inferior; she seeks an award of
a pattern no inference of unlawful discrimination can
compensatory damages for the resulting emotional
be drawn.
distress. We may assume without having to decide that
emotional as well as physical barriers to the integration
AFFIRMED.
of disabled persons into the workforce are relevant in
determining the reasonableness of an accommodation.
But we do not think an employer has a duty to
All Citations
expend even modest amounts of money to bring about
an absolute identity in working conditions between
44 F.3d 538, 133 A.L.R. Fed. 713, 63 USLW 2459, 3
disabled and nondisabled workers. The creation of
A.D. Cases 1636, 8 A.D.D. 159, 6 NDLR P 27
such a duty would be the inevitable consequence
End of Document
10