This simple job description tweak could save your company from disability bias claims

It may be as easy as listing the essential functions of the job.

I’ll give you an example.

A national furniture retailer hired a Warehouse Associate to unload and receive inbound furniture orders. One would assume that the job requires moving heavy objects often. But you know what you get when you assume, right?

So, the company created a one-page job description for the position. In the one-page explanation of the job, this requirement—the ability to lift up to 75 pounds unassisted—appeared twice: at the top of the bullet-point lists of “What You’ll Do” and “What You’ll Need” as a Warehouse Associate.

Now, the Americans with Disabilities Act is federal law, and federal laws usually have their fair share of legal jargon. The ADA is no different, with terms like “qualified individual,” “reasonable accommodation,” “undue hardship,” and “essential functions.” Essential functions, for example, are the fundamental job duties that individuals must be able to perform independently or with the help of reasonable accommodations.

But the job description here didn’t include that legalese. It used plain English that reasonable laypersons—your employees—can understand: “What You’ll Do” and “What You’ll Need.” And in case there was any doubt about lifting requirements, the company repeated the 75-lb restrictions in both sections.

Unfortunately, the employee hurt his right shoulder on the job. Consequently, he could no longer lift 75 pounds. He also submitted paperwork from his doctor indicating that he could “not return to work.” His doctor did not note any possible accommodations or suggest any possible return date.

So, the company terminated the employer after he had used up all his leave time, advising that the employee was eligible for re-hire if he re-applied after recovering. But he never did.

Instead, he sued his former employer, claiming disability discrimination.

Naturally, the lower court and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with his theory of liability, which would have required that the plaintiff demonstrate—legal mumbo-jumbo incoming—that he was qualified to perform the job’s essential functions with or without reasonable accommodations.

In short, the plaintiff could not perform what he needed to do for his job: lifting heavy stuff. The court also acknowledged that the job description clearly described what the plaintiff would do and need to perform his job, such as “repeatedly lifting up to 75 pounds unassisted.” Since the plaintiff could not do this, he was unqualified for the position and lacked a tenable disability bias claim.