In Boitnott v. Corning Inc., the federal Fourth Circuit Courts of Appeal (covering Virginia) held that a worker able to work eight hours in a day and 40 hours a week was not disabled under the ADA. Corning operated its plant 24-hours a day, and employees worked 12-hour shifts, alternating every two weeks between day and night shifts. After a heart attack and diagnosis of leukemia, plaintiff’s physician restricted him to working eight hours a day and 40 hours a week. As part of the interactive process, the employer created a new position for plaintiff that limited his hours to only day-shift work of eight hours a day plus overtime. Plaintiff sued for alleged failure to “reasonably accommodate” him by requiring overtime on occasion. Dismissing the case, the court held that the inability to work overtime is not a protected disability. As a cautionary note, California defines disability more expansively than the federal ADA so that a California court might possibly reach a different result under the same facts.
Register Now As you are not an existing subscriber please register for your free daily legal newsfeed service.Register
If you have any questions about the service please contact email@example.com or call Lexology Customer Services on +44 20 7234 0606.
Inability to work more than eight hours a day or 40 hours a week not ADA disability
If you are interested in submitting an article to Lexology, please contact Andrew Teague at firstname.lastname@example.org.
"Lexology is a good barometer of a firm's expertise as the articles showcase a firm's understanding of the issues involved and how up to date their knowledge is. It's a good one stop solution where one is able...
"Lexology is a good barometer of a firm's expertise as the articles showcase a firm's understanding of the issues involved and how up to date their knowledge is. It's a good one stop solution where one is able to view the same law/cases from different perspectives; on the whole I would rate Lexology as a good service."
How Yee Loh