Turco v. Hoechst Celanese Chemical Group, Inc.: Employer Not Subject to ADA Claim by Employee Who Failed to Follow Safety Guidelines

In Turco v. Hoechst Celanese Chemical Group, Inc., the district court held that the employee, who suffered diabetes mellitus, was not qualified for his position, with or without the accommodation of a shift change or reassignment.

In 1981, Turco became a chemical process operator for Hoechst. In 1984, he was diagnosed with diabetes, and by 1994, was insulin dependent. Hoechst was aware of Turco's condition and its progression. Turco admitted that his performance began to deteriorate in 1994, noting that he occasionally became confused and lost concentration. In March 1994, he applied to become a day-shift process analyzer technician, but was not selected for the position. His doctor advised Hoechst that a day-time position could improve Turco's performance. From February to May 1994, Turco violated Hoechst safety procedures several times. The incidents included hooking a fire hose to contaminated water and exposing his arms to toxic substances. In June 1994, citing repeated failure to follow procedures, Hoechst terminated Turco. Turco sued under the ADA, claiming that Hoechst failed to reasonably accommodate him by transferring him to the analyzer position or another day-time position. Hoechst moved for summary judgment.

The district court noted that under the ADA, Turco must show: (1) that he was disabled (i.e. suffered a mental or physical impairment that substantially limited at least one major life activity); (2) that he was a "qualified individual," who could perform the essential functions of his position with or without reasonable accommodation; (3) that he was discharged; and (4) that his disability was the basis for his discharge. The court defined reasonable accommodations as those which do not place undue hardship on an employer.

The district court found that for purposes of a summary judgment motion, Turco established that he was disabled, as he produced evidence that his condition substantially limited some of his major life activities. However, the court found that Turco could not establish that he was qualified for his position, either with or without accommodation. The court noted that reasonable accommodation may include "reassignment to a vacant position," but that "qualification standards" which tend to screen out disabled individuals but which are consistent with business necessity can provide a defense under the ADA. Standards which disqualify individuals who pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others in the workplace satisfy this defense. Thus, the court held that in order for Turco to prevail, he must show that he was treated differently from other similarly situated employees with regard to either the denial of transfer or shift change.

The district court found that Turco was not qualified for the position of chemical process operator, regardless of which shift he worked. Despite the contentions of Turco's doctor that a day-time job would benefit Turco, the court noted that the ADA does not require employers to await uncertain results of an employee's treatment program. The court also noted that whichever shift Turco worked, he still presented a safety risk, and that if reasonable accommodation would not eliminate a significant safety risk, the handicapped person is not "otherwise qualified."

The court also addressed Turco's claim that Hoechst should have reassigned him to a vacant position. The court noted that the ADA does not require employers to offer available positions to employees who do not meet the job qualifications standards. Further, an employer is not required to endure undue hardship in accommodating the disability, nor is it required to make accommodations which would violate the rights of other employees. The court added that where other employees who are more qualified for an available position, or have more seniority, an employer is not required to offer the open position to an employee who requests a transfer because he or she is disabled. The court found that because Turco would require retraining for the vacant position, he was not qualified. Thus, the court granted summary judgment to Hoechst.

Turco v. Hoechst Celanese Chemical Group, Inc., 906 F. Supp. 1120 (S.D. Tex. 1995), aff'd 101 F.3d 1090 (5th Cir. 1996).

Notice: The information on this page may not be current. The archive is a collection of content previously published on one or more NAR web properties. Archive pages are not updated and may no longer be accurate. Users must independently verify the accuracy and currency of the information found here. The National Association of REALTORS® disclaims all liability for any loss or injury resulting from the use of the information or data found on this page.

Advertisement