Conduct a critical analysis to the RESPONSE, listed below, (IN BOLD), In no less than 200 words. Responses must demonstrate clear, insightful critical thinking.

John is a 54-year-old man with diabetes. He has worked for Telco for 20 years. Lately, he has difficulty concentrating and makes numerous mistakes. He has missed several days of work due to his diabetes. Supervisor Mark wants to fire John this week.

Instructions: Please write in essay format. Include the guidance below in your analysis:
a) Set forth the federal statute and/or theories of law that are applicable.
b) Identify the legal issue(s) that exist and claims that may be brought based on the facts of the case.
c) Apply the facts of the case to the elements of the law/theories of law.
d) Cite a case in the text which is on point with the scenario, or compare and contrast with a case in the text.
e) Provide an action item agenda of specific objectives you would recommend implementing in order to prevent future exposure to liability. Be specific (e.g., if training is a recommendation, describe the type of training in detail).

Response:

When evaluating John’s case, I would inform him that the federal statute that Supervisor Mark violated is the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which addresses employment discrimination against people with disabilities (Bennett-Alexander and Hartman, 2019, p. 688). According to Bennett-Alexander and Hartman (2019), the ADA prohibits employers from making adverse employment decisions based on an individual’s disability if an individual with a disability is otherwise qualified for a position with or without reasonable accommodation (p. 688). The term disability under the ADA is defined as "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of an individual; a record of such impairment or being regarded as having such an impairment" (Bennett-Alexander and Hartman, 2019, p. 691). Furthermore, the ADA requires an employer to make “reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability (Bennett-Alexander and Hartman, 2019, p. 706),” but only if such accommodation would not cause undue hardship. Therefore, Supervisor Mark violated this federal statute as John’s diabetes, which has become a physical and mental impairment, was the main factor in their decision to fire him within the week.

The legal issue that exists in John’s case includes the discrimination of a disability protected by the ADA. The possibility of firing John, despite his dedication to Telco over the past 20 years, due to his difficulty concentrating, his numerous mistakes, and his continuous absences from work as caused by his diabetes would be a clear indication of employment discrimination on the basis of disability. It appears that Supervisor Mark is aware of John’s diabetes as I assume that when John has called off sick from work, he has given Supervisor Mark a reason as to why. If this is true, Supervisor Mark does not have a legal right to fire John and instead is required to provide him with reasonable accommodation such as allowing John flexibility in break time or allowing him to take a leave of absence to give him time to care for his health (Bennett-Alexander and Hartman, 2019, p. 707).

A similar case that echoes John’s is Kallail v. Alliant Energy Corp. Servs., Inc. In this case, as a Bennett-Alexander and Hartman (2019) articulates, Terri Kallail, a Type I insulin-dependent diabetic, “worked in teams of two on nine-week schedules that rotate between 8- and 12-hour shifts and between day and night shifts, a requirement included in her job description” (p. 742). Although Terri began to “experience increased difficulties managing her diabetes while working the rotating shifts, and her physician recommended that she work only day shifts,” Alliant failed to provide Terri with reasonable accommodations by offering her a flexible job position that would allow her to work “a straight day shift,” did not require “walking, which she was unable to do,” did not “pay less than her current position,” and did not require her to “relocate or to commute a significant distance to work” (Bennett-Alexander and Hartman, 2019, p. 742). Instead, Alliant “offered her a number of day shift positions,” which “offered lower pay or required qualifications for which Kallail was not suited, and she refused them” (Bennett-Alexander and Hartman, 2019, p. 742). After refusing the job positions she was being offered, “she began to receive disability benefits and subsequently filed a complaint with the EEOC and then a lawsuit” (Bennett-Alexander and Hartman, 2019, p. 742). Terri’s case demonstrates what could happen when an employer does not making reasonable accommodations to an employee with a disability like diabetes, resorting to the employee to resign or the employer to terminate the employee, and thus subjecting these employees to file lawsuits.

In order to prevent future exposure to liability, I would recommend evaluating an employer’s liability under the ADA with regard to three factors: essential functions, reasonable accommodations, and the duty to engage in an interactive process. I would also recommend training employers on how to properly follow the statues that are set to protect employees with disabilities through the teaching of the meanings behind the legal ADA terms defined above, the consequences of violating laws that fall under the ADA, and the reasonable accommodations they can provide employees that will prevent any liability issues that may arise in the future. These two recommendations can help in reducing such cases as John’s to a minimal.