Sixth Circuit Interprets Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in Tourette’s Case

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects qualified people with disabilities who can perform their jobs with reasonable accommodation. In Cooper v. Dolgencorp, LLC, the question before the 6th Circuit was what constitutes reasonable accommodation when the disability is a rare form of Tourette syndrome that caused the plaintiff to utter inappropriate and obscene words, including racial slurs and a derogatory term for women.

Writing in Employment Law Insights, J. William Manuel and Anne R. Yuengert explain that the plaintiff worked as a delivery merchandiser, which entailed “delivering, merchandising and maintaining company standards at company locations.” Interacting with people and maintaining “excellent customer service skills” were essential job functions.

Plaintiff’s employer knew about his condition when he was hired, but claimed not to know the full extent of it. Employees of stores where he delivered reported being uncomfortable after they had to apologize to people who overheard offensive words he uttered.

After therapy and some brief improvements, there were more complaints. One customer requested that he no longer service their store.

The plaintiff asked for a route that didn’t involve interacting with customers. None was available. He took a warehouse position at less pay, then left the company, and sued under the ADA, citing failure to accommodate.

At trial, the company moved for summary judgment based on the plaintiff’s inability to provide excellent customer service, which it called an essential function. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s case, and he appealed to the Sixth Circuit.

At the Sixth Circuit, the plaintiff stipulated that “excellent customer service” was an essential function of his position. The court then examined whether he could provide such service without accommodation. His doctor admitted that he could not, so he clearly needed accommodation.

In its ruling, the court said that the plaintiff failed to identify an objectively reasonable accommodation, and affirmed the trial court’s dismissal.

The authors say this case demonstrates why good job descriptions are important. The employer won because it could point to an essential function in the job description, as well as attempts to accommodate the plaintiff’s disability.