Chris Lucas suffers from paruresis (aka, shy bladder syndrome). He claimed
that he could not urinate in public bathrooms, and often would hold his bladder
throughout his entire work day to avoid having to use the restroom at work. He
also admitted, however, that if the urge become too overwhelming, his desire not
to wet himself would overcome his fear of public urination.
Lucasfs employer, Gregg Appliances, maintained a drug-free workplace policy
which required periodic testing of employees. Lucasfs promotion to a general
manager position was contingent upon him passing just such a drug test. When
Lucas (and his shy bladder) could not complete the drug test, the testing clinic
reported to the employer: gPER COLLECTOR: DONOR LEFT COLLECTION SITE BEFORE
COMPLETION OF DRUG TEST.h When confronted by management, Lucas never mentioned
his difficulty urinating or his paruresis. Indeed, he did not even visit a
physician for his condition until the day after Gregg Appliances fired him for
failing to take the required drug screen.
In Lucas v. Gregg Appliances (S.D. Ohio 4/15/15),
an Ohio federal court concluded that Lucas could not proceed with his ADA claim.
The court dismissed Lucasfs claim for two reasons:
-
The employer had no knowledge of his disability. Lucas never told anyone
at the employer before taking his drug test, or after he failed to complete
the test. He only relayed his condition to his boss after he was fired. Just
because an employer knows that an employee has a health problem (i.e., the
inability to pee after drinking several glasses of water over the span of two
hours) does not mean that the employer also knows that the employee suffers
from an ADA-protected disability. Where the disability is not obvious, the
burden is on the employee to make the employer aware.
- Just as the burden is on the employee to advise of the existence of a
disability, the burden also squarely rests on the employee to request a
reasonable accommodation. Here, Lucas did not request any accommodation (a
blood or hair test) until after his termination. If an
employee fails to request a reasonable accommodation during his employment, he
cannot later complain that the employer failed to provide an accommodation or
otherwise participate in the interactive process.
The ADA does not require an employer to guess and play detective. Instead,
it anticipates a collaborative conversation between employer and employee about
disabilities and accommodations. The party that fails to take part in this
conversation will usually be the one that ends up the loser in any ADA
lawsuit.