Martin Onken was a welder for McNeilus Truck & Manufacturing in Iowa. He has Type I diabetes which causes him to have occasional low blood sugar episodes – hypoglycemia.

Onken is among a small percentage of diabetics who are often unable to detect their low blood sugar from physical symptoms.

He suffered several low-blood sugar episodes at work. Co-workers would offer him a soda, candy bar or tube of glucose to bring his blood sugar back up. The company worked with Onken through several episodes and encouraged him to seek medical help to better control his condition, which he did.

However, one hypoglycemic episode in particular proved to be the last straw.

During this episode, some of Onken’s co-workers saw him staggering near his work station.

One co-worker, who was also a paramedic, approached him. Onken lifted his arm into a position that implied he was going to hit his co-worker, laughed and said, “You scared?”

When the plant supervisor approached him, Onken held his left arm back as if he was going to hit the supervisor. Onken lowered his arm, and the supervisor suggested he go to the break room. Onken cursed at the supervisor and said he wasn’t going anywhere.

Then Onken locked himself in a restroom and refused to come out. He came out of the restroom after 25 minutes.

When the co-worker who was a paramedic offered Onken a tube with glucose to bring his blood sugar back up, he knocked it out of her hand. Paramedics took Onken to the hospital.

In his report about the episode, the supervisor wrote that this time he knew those around Onken were at risk.

A doctor evaluated Onken. The doctor wrote Onken “would not be a risk to himself or others if he was able to manage his underlying medical condition without having hypoglycemic episodes. He appears to be unable to appropriately determine when he is becoming hypoglycemic and to take appropriate action.”

Based on the doctor’s report, and the company’s own observance of Onken, they fired him.

Onken sued, claiming discrimination based on his disability.

The court’s ruling: The company had a valid safety reason to fire Onken. The judges wrote that, since Onken presented a direct threat to the safety of others at the plant, he wasn’t a qualified individual with a disability as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act.

For more information on accommodating employees with diabetes, click here.

Cite: Onken v. McNeilus Truck & Manufacturing, Inc., U.S. District Court, N.D. Iowa, Eastern Division, No. 08-CV-2003-LRR, 7/10/09.

A diabetic employee can’t control his hypoglycemic episodes. In recent episodes, he’s become disoriented around dangerous equipment and threatened violence against co-workers. Can you fire him for safety reasons, or is he protected under disability law?

Martin Onken was a welder for McNeilus Truck & Manufacturing in Iowa. He has Type I diabetes which causes him to have occasional low blood sugar episodes – hypoglycemia.

Onken is among a small percentage of diabetics who are often unable to detect their low blood sugar from physical symptoms.

He suffered several low-blood sugar episodes at work. Co-workers would offer him a soda, candy bar or tube of glucose to bring his blood sugar back up. The company worked with Onken through several episodes and encouraged him to seek medical help to better control his condition, which he did.

However, one hypoglycemic episode in particular proved to be the last straw.

During this episode, some of Onken’s co-workers saw him staggering near his work station.

One co-worker, who was also a paramedic, approached him. Onken lifted his arm into a position that implied he was going to hit his co-worker, laughed and said, “You scared?”

When the plant supervisor approached him, Onken held his left arm back as if he was going to hit the supervisor. Onken lowered his arm, and the supervisor suggested he go to the break room. Onken cursed at the supervisor and said he wasn’t going anywhere.

Then Onken locked himself in a restroom and refused to come out. He came out of the restroom after 25 minutes.

When the co-worker who was a paramedic offered Onken a tube with glucose to bring his blood sugar back up, he knocked it out of her hand. Paramedics took Onken to the hospital.

In his report about the episode, the supervisor wrote that this time he knew those around Onken were at risk.

A doctor evaluated Onken. The doctor wrote Onken “would not be a risk to himself or others if he was able to manage his underlying medical condition without having hypoglycemic episodes. He appears to be unable to appropriately determine when he is becoming hypoglycemic and to take appropriate action.”

Based on the doctor’s report, and the company’s own observance of Onken, they fired him.

Onken sued, claiming discrimination based on his disability.

The court’s ruling: The company had a valid safety reason to fire Onken. The judges wrote that, since Onken presented a direct threat to the safety of others at the plant, he wasn’t a qualified individual with a disability as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act.

For more information on accommodating employees with diabetes, click here.

Cite: Onken v. McNeilus Truck & Manufacturing, Inc., U.S. District Court, N.D. Iowa, Eastern Division, No. 08-CV-2003-LRR, 7/10/09.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) had sued J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., claiming that the rights of applicants for over-the-road (OTR) truck driving jobs had been violated.

Hunt chose not to hire OTR applicants taking certain prescription medications with side effects that could impair driving.

The trucking company argued that the large vehicle size and the extreme driving conditions faced by its OTR drivers warranted extra safety precautions.

Hunt cited Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations that allow an operator to require and enforce “more stringent requirements relating to safety of operation and employee safety and health.”

The two-judge majority on the 2nd Circuit disagreed with the EEOC, saying the applicants lost their jobs because of the medications they took, not because of any real or perceived disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

To find that the applicants were regarded as disabled, the EEOC had to show that Hunt perceived the rejected applicants as limited from a class or a broad range of jobs.

The two-judge majority found that OTR driving didn’t qualify as a class or broad range of jobs.

But Judge Sotomayor found that the EEOC has shown Hunt believed the rejected applicants were unfit to drive any truck — which qualified as a broad range of jobs.

Had one of the other two judges agreed with her position, Hunt would have been found in violation of the ADA.

If that were the case, Hunt would not have been allowed to set higher safety standards for its OTR drivers than required by the DOT.

The majority ruling in the Hunt case and Sotomayor’s dissent are online here.

What do you think about this case and Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

Tacoma Goodwill will pay $13,300 for three violations in the death of 27-year-old Nick Miller. The violations are related to the implementation of its accident prevention program, recordkeeping and the safety features of its box tipping machines.

The company was originally hit with nine violations for a total potential fine of $50,000.

A year ago, Miller was crushed under a hydraulic tipper on Goodwill’s loading dock.

Immediately after the accident, Goodwill made voluntary safety improvements, including placement of lock-out devices on its tipper machines.

There was some confusion over whether Miller, who had the cognitive abilities of a 10-year-old, was authorized to operate the tipper, according to The News Tribune.

Some told officials Miller wasn’t authorized, but others said he was, a statement that was backed up by training records which said it was part of his regular duties.

Blanket policies barring employees on light or limited duty from working overtime violate the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

That’s the upshot of a case involving United Airlines. In a consent decree filed in federal court, the company has agreed to pay $850,000 to settle an EEOC disability-discrimination lawsuit.

From 1998 to 2003, the airline had a policy that denied overtime work to employees who were on light or limited duty.

Samuel Chetcuti, a United employee at the San Francisco airport, filed a claim against the company.

Chetcuti has epilepsy and was under medical restrictions that prevented him from operating heavy machinery or working “at heights.”

United considered Chetcuti on light duty. He was medically cleared to work overtime, but United’s policy prevented him from doing so.

A consent decree between United and the EEOC states that the airline “shall not discriminate against United employees at San Francisco International Airport on the basis of disability regarding eligibility for overtime.” United ended the overtime restriction in 2003.

EEOC attorney William Tamayo said United’s former overtime policy ran “counter to the ADA’s goal that each employee be evaluated individually on whether they can get the job done, with or without an accommodation.”

One of the best ways to reduce workers’ comp costs is to have a light-duty program already in place for injured or disabled workers.

Does your company have a light-duty program in place for employees who are injured or who are diagnosed with a medical condition? Let us know about it in the Comments Box below.