ADA case: Petzold v. Bormans Inc. (d/b/a Farmer Jack)

Consider the following case:

In 1995, Karl Petzold, 22, was hired by a Farmer Jack supermarket in Hamtramck, Michigan, to work as a bagger. His duties included bagging groceries for customers at the checkout counter, retrieving shopping carts from the parking lot, and assisting elderly customers in taking groceries to their cars, all of which placed him in continual contact with customers. In May 1996, when Petzold was bagging groceries for a group of black customers, he began cursing and uttering racially disparaging remarks. Although the checkout cashier told the customers that Petzold had a medical condition and that he meant no disrespect, the angry customers reported Petzolds behavior to the store manager. When asked by the manager about the incident, Petzold admitted he had said offensive words to the customers, but that he did not do it intentionally. He explained that he had coprolalia, a symptom of Tourettes syndrome, a neurological condition that causes the victim to produce involuntary outbursts of obscene language and socially inappropriate remarks such as ethnic and religious slurs. Furthermore, these outbursts are triggered by the presence of those who would be most offended by them. Petzold admitted that he had used offensive language on a daily basis in the presence of other employees, children, and customers. The store manager sent Petzold home before the end of his shift and fired him several days later. Petzold filed a grievance with his union but the union refused to hear his charge, determining that the complaint lacked merit. Petzold then filed suit in Michigan state court, claiming that his illness did not affect his ability to perform his job and that he was protected from firing under Michigans antidiscrimination laws and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The two sides of this case are:

Pro: the ADA protects Petzold from being fired from his job.

Con: the ADA does not protect Petzold from being fired, and Farmer Jacks firing of Petzold was justified under law.

Using the legal standards established by the Americans with Disabilities Act, provide arguments for and against Petzold. Give the strongest arguments you can, both in favor and against Petzold. Then, come to a conclusion about whether the ADA protects Petzold from being fired from his job.

In your analysis, you will find it useful to consider the following legal issues:

1. Does Petzolds condition qualify as a disability, according to the ADA?
2. Which definition of disability, if any, applies to Petzolds condition?
3. What are the essential functions of the job of bagger?
4. Is Petzold capable of performing these essential functions, with or without accommodation?
5. Assuming that Petzolds condition qualifies as a disability, what specific types of actions by management would count as reasonable accommodation?
6. If Petzolds condition qualifies as a disability, who is responsible for letting the supermarket know that reasonable accommodations need to be made?
7. If the supermarket were to accommodate Petzolds disability, would that entail undue hardship? Why or why not?

To address all the issues involved in this case, a good response will require 1.5 to 2 double-spaced typewritten pages