Hernandez Case

If we terminate, Cheryl from a company. The consequences would be having someone new and training him or her. Although the training will also cost a lot to teach someone new the companies, work duties. This way we could lose the productivity of the daytime and the consequences will not be good for an organization. One of the case study presented at the University of the Southern California Football coach Mr. Sakisian’s who had been on drugs and violated policies of his company. He has terminated and was unable to accommodate. Mr. Sarkisian’s had gone to his pep rally and taken two beers along with prescribed medication (Greenwald). Further the issues raised in court in the Greenwald articles states, “The Americans with Disabilities Act protects a “qualified” alcoholic who is considered to have a “disability,” which has
defined as "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.” (Greenwald). Its means that Mr. Sarkisian had gone under mental or physical distress, which caused him trouble. The head person of the company, Mr. Robison had given advice to some of his employees. Do not take quick action towards an alcoholic employee until you figure out the real reason behind it. If the employee needs help, it is the employer responsibility to assist these disruptive employees by sending to rehab centers to get treatment (Greenwald). In spite of the fact that EEOC said in the article of Greenwald, “Despite their disability, the workers in question can be held to the same performance and conduct standards of other employees” (Greenwald). It has implied that Mr. Sarkisian has the same rights as his other employees even if he is under drugs. The court case still in process.
The other court case I found is about an employee who worked for Hughes Missile Company for twenty-five years. The Kicking the Habit court case stated that, Hernandez was an alcoholic, when his company tested him. He also admitted that he has been under drugs (Kicking the Habit). As indicated by his business ethics, he had violated the company’s policies. With that, his company forced him to resign. He took the case to court and, it had shown the evidence that he was under drugs. The case is still under the process of court.
Both cases were inverse of each other, The University of Southern Football coach Mr.
Sarkisian had violated the company policies, however, he was under prescribed medications. The other case had Hernandez addicted to drugs and violating policies, and the only difference is here being that he was forced to resign, and the company did not give him another opportunity. I learned that every company is different with their various policies and situations they face. I found out that it would be better if a supervisor carefully evaluates the problem and addresses it based on the results. I believe the Hernandez case needed more attention and evaluation on this issue since he had worked for so long with his good performance (“Kicking the Habit”). These both cases had similarity with my case. Bothe case had employees who have been working in the company for a long time. At the particular time, an issue had arisen towards them where they were addicted to the alcoholism. They violated the policies at the workplace by not cooperating well in the workplace. However, the management did not take the time to figure the issue properly and then come on
decision.
Part V: Conclusion
In my scenario, Cheryl has a problem with alcohol. According to Americans with Disabilities Act, I determined that Cheryl has a disability (Americans with Disabilities Act). Due to her disability Cheryl cannot come to work between the hours of 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. and she is a requesting an accommodation. However, I cannot accommodated her if she unable to complete her essential function of the job. One of her main duties were to answers phone at particular time from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. and she was unable to do this. Based on performance at job, I have decided not to accommodate Cheryl because she has not met the essential job function of her duties.