Court Opinion

ID: 9663519
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:41:22.136231+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:51.249299
License: Public Domain

CANE, P.J.
(concurring). I concur with the majority except I would conclude that, as a part of its analysis, the commission must determine whether the *278employer has failed to accommodate the employee to another job that is related to the responsibilities of that individual’s employment. If it is not job-related, the inquiry ends and there is no discrimination under sec. 111.34, Stats.
The pertinent part of sec. 111.34(2)(a) reads:
[I]t is not employment discrimination because of handicap ... to ... terminate from employment ... any individual ... if the handicap is reasonably related to the individual’s ability to adequately undertake the job-related responsibilities of that individual’s employment ....
Section 111.34(2)(b) sets forth some criteria when evaluating whether the individual employee can adequately undertake the job-related responsibilities of a particular job. The statute also tells us that this evaluation must be done on a case-by-case basis. Consequently, if the employee cannot adequately undertake the job-related responsibilities of his or her employment, there is no discrimination if the employer terminates that person’s employment.
If the employer can terminate a person’s employment without discriminating because the individual can no longer perform the responsibilities related to the particular job, then it need not accommodate a handicapped employee to other employment that does not have some relationship to the responsibilities of the job he or she can no longer perform. For example, if there had been an opening in the accounting department of Owens-Illinois, obviously that would not be job-related to the woodcutting job responsibilities, and we would not need to address the questions of whether the accommodation was reasonable or would pose a hardship on the employer. Generally, whether the other *279position is job-related, however, is a question of fact for the commission to determine. In this case, whether the woodcutter’s responsibilities is job-related to other employment at the mill is a factual question for the commission.
Therefore, sec. 111.34 imposes a three-part test to determine whether there is discrimination in the type of situation before us: whether the employer has failed to accommodate the employee to a job-related responsibility; whether the accommodation would be reasonable; and whether the accommodation would pose a hardship on the employer’s program, enterprise, or business.