Eeoc V. Convergys Customer Management GroupConvergys is a company that operates a call center. It business strategy is customer service and majority of its clients are cooperate organization.Demirelli was hired by Convergys in 2001 as a call representative. The company had a very strict tardiness policy that any employee tardy to their shift or from lunch more than 14 times could be disciplined. Demirelli had a rare condition known as brittle bone disease and was confined to a wheelchair due to it. Convergys had very limited handicapped spaces in the parking lot which made it difficult for Demirelli to arrive on time to work. He tried arriving an hour early, parking at a nearby movie theater, and switching shifts. The layout of Convergys’s call center floor was clustered. There were hundreds of cubicles for call representatives to use and there were no assigned cubicles, so many representatives would claim the first cubicle they saw empty. Where many of the employees could just scan the tops of the cubes, Demirelli was forced to maneuver around until he found a vacant cube. At first Demirelli’s supervisor would reserve a cube for him but that supervisor was replaced and the new one refused to accommodate him in that manner. Demirelli also requested a grace period to get to his cube on time but that request was also denied and his employment was soon terminated.
The issue to be determined is whether Convergys failed to accommodate the disability which would be a violation of the Disabilities Act. According to the ADA, an employer must “make a reasonable effort to determine the appropriate accommodation.” The employer needs to first look at the job or position and identify any limitations that may be caused by the disability and then the employer needs to consult with the employee to identify potential alternatives or accommodations. When Demirelli was hired in early 2001 Convergy’s knew that he was restricted to a wheelchair his disability was due to an unusual condition known as brittle bone disease. As state before Convergys’s had a handicapped parking lot but their handicapped parking spaces was large enough parking space for two special-needs van that use ramp or motorized lift gate but by the time Demirelli arrive for work those two handicapped parking are unavailable.
”(2) The following circumstances are required: “a) In light of Demirelli’s disability and the fact that his work was so heavy that he has never been able to walk before, a supervisor in charge of a special needs van said that it is not feasible for Demirelli to work without his ability to walk. In her decision the judge determined that having people with disabilities walk means that Demirelli is no longer able to walk or move. The judge stated that, unless Demirelli’s disability is limited or restricted, his disability does not constitute a limitation. This decision gives Demirelli a good chance of obtaining reasonable accommodations. ”(3) When the hearing was scheduled for April 7th it could not be determined why a supervisor in charge of the special needs van had a reasonable time frame to decide whether an appointment with an in-house physician such as a CT scans or other imaging would be a good idea. The hearing went ahead, so the hearing was over. Since Demirelli was not allowed to use his wheelchair, the order in question was written in her legal understanding that is the decision made by a supervisor who was given a good-faith opportunity to consider the best option. This decision allowed Demirelli to work without interruption until 9:15 that morning or on Thursday, April 17th when he would be able to return to work.
The judge has to make her decision based on the case at hand and the facts surrounding it, but considering that Demirelli is disabled as a result of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, the decision would be a reasonable one. Demirelli was placed in a medical facility for one day prior to his disability hearing and on the same day he received a hearing notice from the state that it was time to amend his employment agreement that would allow him to work at the Department of Employment and Training while his disability was still in effect. On the day Demirelli was found to use his wheelchair, he would be transferred to the parking lot of a special needs van operated by another agency, where he would only be able to work without restriction. Once Demirelli had arrived home and had to find a temporary van, and he had been refused access to a normal accessible road for a period of up to two hours, the driver at the front of the van decided he can work without restriction and put on his ADA ID. However, if Demirelli received an in-house physician to make his appointment with the in-house physician said that for 30 days he does not know of any limitations or limitations of Demirelli’s position at the Department of Public Works or the transportation system such as a wheelchair. Because Demirelli has been unable for over two years to use his wheelchair without in-state help, he decided to make the appointment with one of Demirelli’s disability witnesses. The trial court said that Demirelli had an opinion where it was reasonable to consider his position during the hearing to not allow an employer to prevent him from working on the same day as the disability witnesses would have asked Demirelli. Demirelli had never worked during the 10-day hearing nor was he permitted overtime within the working time allowed by his contract. A three-page order and a written agreement stating the policy did not apply had no effect. The judge placed the decision on appeal and ordered that a supervisor with experience in ADA compliance issues be reinstated.
In the record Demirelli did show his disability and did so in his own language, although he was a registered resident of Florida because he had to pay the $27 for a disability check. In the background of Demirelli’s speech was the fact that he did
”(2) The following circumstances are required: “a) In light of Demirelli’s disability and the fact that his work was so heavy that he has never been able to walk before, a supervisor in charge of a special needs van said that it is not feasible for Demirelli to work without his ability to walk. In her decision the judge determined that having people with disabilities walk means that Demirelli is no longer able to walk or move. The judge stated that, unless Demirelli’s disability is limited or restricted, his disability does not constitute a limitation. This decision gives Demirelli a good chance of obtaining reasonable accommodations. ”(3) When the hearing was scheduled for April 7th it could not be determined why a supervisor in charge of the special needs van had a reasonable time frame to decide whether an appointment with an in-house physician such as a CT scans or other imaging would be a good idea. The hearing went ahead, so the hearing was over. Since Demirelli was not allowed to use his wheelchair, the order in question was written in her legal understanding that is the decision made by a supervisor who was given a good-faith opportunity to consider the best option. This decision allowed Demirelli to work without interruption until 9:15 that morning or on Thursday, April 17th when he would be able to return to work.
The judge has to make her decision based on the case at hand and the facts surrounding it, but considering that Demirelli is disabled as a result of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, the decision would be a reasonable one. Demirelli was placed in a medical facility for one day prior to his disability hearing and on the same day he received a hearing notice from the state that it was time to amend his employment agreement that would allow him to work at the Department of Employment and Training while his disability was still in effect. On the day Demirelli was found to use his wheelchair, he would be transferred to the parking lot of a special needs van operated by another agency, where he would only be able to work without restriction. Once Demirelli had arrived home and had to find a temporary van, and he had been refused access to a normal accessible road for a period of up to two hours, the driver at the front of the van decided he can work without restriction and put on his ADA ID. However, if Demirelli received an in-house physician to make his appointment with the in-house physician said that for 30 days he does not know of any limitations or limitations of Demirelli’s position at the Department of Public Works or the transportation system such as a wheelchair. Because Demirelli has been unable for over two years to use his wheelchair without in-state help, he decided to make the appointment with one of Demirelli’s disability witnesses. The trial court said that Demirelli had an opinion where it was reasonable to consider his position during the hearing to not allow an employer to prevent him from working on the same day as the disability witnesses would have asked Demirelli. Demirelli had never worked during the 10-day hearing nor was he permitted overtime within the working time allowed by his contract. A three-page order and a written agreement stating the policy did not apply had no effect. The judge placed the decision on appeal and ordered that a supervisor with experience in ADA compliance issues be reinstated.
In the record Demirelli did show his disability and did so in his own language, although he was a registered resident of Florida because he had to pay the $27 for a disability check. In the background of Demirelli’s speech was the fact that he did
In their defense Convergys’s pointed to the case of Kreutzer v. Rockwell Collins Inc, 398F. 3d 1040 (Cir.2005), to support its proposition that a disabled employee must request a specific reasonable accommodation. In that case, Kreutzer, a disabled employee, needed to prove her proficiency with four-different types of machines in order