Grainger Non Compete Agreement

In May 1996, Lucas injured his back while unloading a trailer.   After seeing a doctor about the injury, he told his boss Paul Stewart, who worked as a store manager at the Marietta Boulevard facility, that his doctor had put him to complete rest.   Lucas also told Stewart that he could not return to work until June 3, 1996 and that when he returned to work, he would have to comply with certain work restrictions, including not lifting more than ten pounds and refraining from bending or bending repeatedly for two weeks.  The ADA cites as examples of reasonable accommodation « workplace restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position, purchase or modification of equipment or equipment, and other similar accommodations for persons with disabilities. »  42 U.S.C§ 12111(9)(B);  see 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(2)(ii).   As can be seen from the list, the ADA may require the employer to « reassign » the disabled worker as a reasonable accommodation, that is, to transfer the disabled worker.   However, the redistricting obligation does not require the employer to push another employee out of a position in order to accommodate an employee with a disability.   See Willis, 108 F.3d at 284.   Nor does it require the employer to transport a disabled worker.   See EEOC v. Humiston-Keeling, Inc., 227 F.3d 1024, 1029 (7th Cir.2000);  Cravens v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 214 F.3d 1011, 1019 (8. Cir.2000);  Cassidy vs.

Detroit Edison Co., 138 F.3d 629, 634 (6th Cir.1998);  Shiring vs. Runyon, 90 F.3d 827, 832 (3d Cir.1996);  see also Terrell v. USAir, 132 F.3d 621, 626 (11th Cir.1998) (citing White v. York Int`l Corp., 45 F.3d 357, 362 (10th Cir.1995));  29 C.F.R. pt. 1630, App. § 1630.2(o) (« It should also be noted that an employer is not required to promote a person with a disability as an accommodation. »). Lucas worked primarily as a customer service representative for much of 1994.   During this time, several customers complained about his phone behavior.

  For example, a customer complained to Grainger that Lucas had spoken to him in a humiliating manner and that the customer had said that he would not do business with Grainger as long as Lucas answered the phone.   Due to the complaints, Grainger decided that Lucas was not fit to be a customer service representative and transferred him to the warehouse, where he had less contact with customers than during his training as a customer service representative. On June 20, 1996, Lucas informed Grainger that he had developed degenerative disc disease and lumbar disc syndrome in his back.   The next day, while performing his temporary office duties, Lucas told a Grainger manager that he could barely keep his eyes open and that he felt « tied inside. »   Lucas left work early that day and didn`t return for several days.  On December 29, 1997, Lucas sued Grainger in the Northern District of Georgia, alleging that Grainger had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C§ 12101 et seq., by discriminating against him on the basis of his disability, harassing him 1 and unlawfully retaliating against him.   Lucas demanded additional payment, declaratory action, reinstatement, advance payment instead of reinstatement, and punitive damages and damages.  The District Court also issued a summary decision in Grainger`s favor regarding Lucas ada`s retaliation claim.   The ADA provides that « no person may discriminate against a person because that person has resisted an act or practice made illegal by [the ADA] or because that person has laid charges. under [the ADA]. 42 U.S.C§ 12203(a).

  To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, Lucas must prove that: (1) he exercised a legally protected expression;  (2) he has suffered an unfavourable employment measure;  and (3) there was a causal link between the adverse act and its protected expression.   See Farley v. Nationwide Mut. In. Co., 197 F.3d 1322, 1336 (11th Cir.1999);  Stewart, 117 F.3d to 1287. Our affirmative action programs include an audit and reporting system that uses, among other things, measurements and other information to measure the effectiveness of our programs. The Positive Action Officer has been tasked with regularly reviewing progress in the implementation and implementation of affirmative action policies. In accordance with public law, the Society`s grant programs for persons with disabilities and protected veterans can be accessed Monday to Friday from 9.m:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.m.m. m (CST) Monday to Friday from 9:00 am.m.m to 5:00 pm .m:00 pm (CST).

Around July 8, 1996, Lucas Stewart announced that his doctor had not yet relieved him of his work restrictions and that the doctor had advised him to do permanent « light » work to avoid further back injuries.   Lucas also told Stewart that he would never work in the warehouse again, even though he was physically able to do so because he feared it would hurt his back further.   Stewart responded by reminding Lucas that his office assignment was temporary and that there were no permanent office jobs available at the Marietta Boulevard facility. The District Court noted that Dr. Clare had approved Lucas for the position of Bin Sorter with minor modifications consistent with the mission`s core functions.   Lucas, on the other hand, claims that Dr. Clare refused the position of bin sorter because his minimum requirements exceeded his work restrictions.   He also claims that some time after visiting the distribution centre, Dr. Clare`s office called him and told him that he had not been approved for the bin sorter position.

On October 15, 1994, Grainger officially promoted Lucas to the position of Representative of the Will Appeal Service, and he retained that title for the remainder of his employment at Grainger. Employees may at any time voluntarily choose to disclose their gender, race, national origin, disability and protected veteran status by contacting Human Resources. This information will remain confidential and will not be used against anyone when making employment decisions. Employees and applicants with disabilities and Veterans with disabilities are encouraged to inform Human Resources if they require adequate accommodation to perform work for which they are otherwise qualified. The Company shall and will continue to make reasonable arrangements for known physical or mental limitations of an applicant or otherwise qualified employee to promote the employment of qualified persons with disabilities and disabled veterans, unless such arrangements would constitute unreasonable hardship to the operation of the Company. 8. Lucas also submits that ADA required Grainger to restructure its work as a representative of the will appeal service as a reasonable accommodation.   See 42 U.S.C. § 12111(9)(B) (List of « Workplace Restructuring » as Reasonable Arrangements).   He argues that Grainger could have restructured this work, for example by introducing « reasonable restrictions on physical suspension. »   However, physical labor in Grainger`s camp was essential — in fact, the primary function of testamentary appeal work, and Lucas could not or would not fulfill that function.

  Lucas told Stewart that he would never work in the warehouse again, even if he was physically able to do so, because he didn`t want to risk continuing to injure his back.   When asked in his testimony if Grainger could have done anything after injuring his back to help him with his camp duties, Lucas replied  » No ».   Lucas could not or would not perform the essential functions of the position of Representative of the Will Appeal Service and was therefore not « otherwise qualified » to do so. .

Comments are closed.