Accommodation Policy and Practice in Employer Policies

Accommodation Policy and Practice in Employer Policies, Return to Work and Attendance Management Programs
Student's Name
Institutional Affiliation
Instructor's Name
Course Full Title
Due Date
Accommodation Policy and Practice in Employer Policies, Return to Work and Attendance Management Programs
Introduction
Duty to accommodate is one of the most fundamental tenants of employment law, recognizing that some people have rights because they are more vulnerable. Others that have power have to accommodate them. Duty to accommodate requires an employer to provide support and help to employees in various situations. In our case, it is in the context of disability.
However, an employee is not entitled to this right if it is too difficult for the employer. It is, however, not enough for the employer to say it is too difficult. He has to show that accommodating the employee would lead to undue hardship. Undue hardship arises if accommodation asked for or requested would create severe and intolerable disruptions to the organization. Both employers and employees have responsibilities in the process of accommodation. The employee initiates the process, and the employer owes the said employee duty to find the best accommodation option or prove undue hardship. The accommodation owed to such employees is reasonable and not preferred. Courts have in the past made decisions in matters regarding the duty of accommodation. This essay explains how past court decisions support accommodation policy and practice in employer policies, attendance management programs, and termination.
Return to Work
Return to work refers to the process that assists individuals with disabilities or health conditions to go back to work after leave. It is essential for both employers and employees. It enables the employers to retain the skills of a productive employee and helps employees overcome barriers to returning to work and maintaining employment.
In Flores v. Duso Enterprises and Nduso, the complainant had acute gout, which had led to him seeking a medical leave (Flores v. Duso Enterprises and Duso, 2008). Flores was fired when he returned from sick leave as a younger employee had replaced him. The court delivered a ruling in the complainant's favor, and the court stated that the employer had discriminated against the employee. The court made a similar decision in McComb v. Yaletown Restoration and Aziz, where the court, therefore, emphasized applying the accommodation principles in situations regarding return to work (McComb v. Yaletown. Restoration and Aziz, 2008). Therefore, these court precedents mean that employers should gradually return to work when employees recover from medical complications.
In a subsequent case, Morris v. BC Rail, Morris, Court emphasized applying the accommodation principle in instances where employees are willing to return to work before they are fully recovered (Morris v. BC Rail, Morris, 2003). If an employee has not recovered fully, his employer owes him a duty to rearrange duties for an easier return to work program. This case involved an employee who suffered from depression. The employers conducted decided to terminate his employment as soon as he returned from the medical leave. T...