Go deeper - join us!
This is a story of an employer, Coca-Cola Consolidated Inc. (CCCI) that tried to accommodate an employee, Cameron Cooper, with Tourette’s Syndrome. Cooper sued CCCI for failing to accommodate his disabilities. The US Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit Court just granted CCCI summary judgment, affirming that the employer did all they could to find a way to keep Cooper employed while managing their business needs. Here’s the story to help businesses better understand the Americans with Disabilities Act and how to engage in the interactive process to make reasonable accommodations for employees with qualified disabilities.
Employee with disability hired
In 2016, CCCI hired Cooper to deliver products to its customers in northeast Tennessee. At the time of hiring, the company was aware of Cooper’s disability, which causes involuntary muscle movements and sounds known as “tics.” In Cooper’s case, according to court documents, it caused him to use obscene and inappropriate vocalizations, such as profanity and racial slurs. The job description required “excellent customer service skills.” Cooper’s position was customer-facing. Maintaining good relationships with the account managers at each store was a key element of the role.
Accommodations needed
CCCI began receiving multiple customer complaints for Cooper’s behavior in stores. Cooper took leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act for further treatment. When he returned to work, his behavior continued. Again, CCCI attempted to accommodate Cooper. At his request, he worked with a partner who would deal with customer interactions. This worked for a short time. The complaints continued. These were serious complaints from customers who were concerned about Cooper’s use of racial slurs and tics in front of their own customers.
More negotiations for accommodations
Cooper’s condition got worse. One store where he delivered, the manager refused to work with him, even after his condition was disclosed. In December 2019, his condition worsened. It was considered “out of control.” He was asked to either take a leave of absence or take a position that was not customer-facing in the warehouse. He asked to work a route that didn’t have customers, but CCCI did not have any available routes. He took the position in the warehouse and had to take a small pay cut.
Just a few months later, he quit. Cooper filed suit against the company asserting that the company failed to accommodate, gave him a constructive discharge, failed to engage in the interactive process, and for retaliation. The district court granted CCCI summary judgment. Cooper appealed.
Appellate Court upholds decision
The Appellate Court affirmed the district court’s decision, stating, “He (Cooper) has offered no evidence that CCCI placed him in the warehouse position to force his resignation rather than as an accommodation.” CCCI worked closely with the employee to find accommodations for his condition, so the argument held no bearing.
This story is a good example of a company that tried to do its best for an employee with a qualified disability.
