Compliance Stuff

Can an employee’s seasonal allergies qualify as a disability that the employer must reasonably accommodate under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)? Short answer: It depends. 0:00 8:35 Quick Hits Seasonal allergies may qualify as a disability under the ADA when they substantially limit major life activities such as breathing or concentrating, and employers must engage in a good-faith interactive process whenever an employee raises allergy-related limitations. While mild seasonal allergies are unlikely to meet the ADA’s definition of disability, severe allergies may be covered, and the ADA requires that the determination be made without considering the ameliorative effects of medication. Employers may want to consider low-cost measures such as improved air filtration or schedule adjustments , and ensure frontline managers are trained to recognize and properly route such requests to maintain ADA compliance. When Do Seasonal Allergies Become a ‘Disability’? Spring is in the air in ...

On June 24, 2025, Rhode Island Governor Daniel McKee signed into law House Bill No. 6161, making Rhode Island the first state in the nation to expressly require employers to provide workplace accommodations for applicants and employees experiencing menopause and related medical conditions unless the employer can demonstrate that the accommodation would pose an undue hardship on the employer’s business operations. This groundbreaking legislation amends the section of the Rhode Island Fair Employment Practices Act requiring employers to provide a reasonable accommodation for an applicant’s or employee’s condition related to pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions to require accommodation of menopause and related medical conditions, effective as of June 24, 2025 . The law amends the definition of “related conditions” to include “the need to manage the effects of vasomotor symptoms”—commonly referred to as “hot flashes” and “night sweats.” Notably, however, the drafters of th...

  Takeaway:   Procedural missteps might result in prolonged litigation, such as having to defend claims before a jury in the first place, even if they don’t necessarily lead to liability. An information technology worker with a lifting restriction failed to persuade a jury that she could perform her job’s essential functions . The California Court of Appeal affirmed a ruling in the employer’s favor, despite its finding that the employer’s process of determining the essential job functions was flawed. In April 2017, an on-the-job incident occurred in which the plaintiff, who worked for Riverside County, Calif., rode in a work vehicle where a fire extinguisher had exploded. As a result of exposure to chemicals in the fire extinguisher, she developed a condition called chemical pneumonia. To address her condition, she saw a doctor, who performed a full physical evaluation. A medical assistant checked a circle on an injury form indicating that the plaintiff “constantly” had to li...