Eeoc V. Convergys Customer Management Group

Convergys is a company that operates a call center. It business strategy is customer service and majority of its clients are cooperate organization.

Demirelli was hired by Convergys in 2001 as a call representative. The company had a very strict tardiness policy that any employee tardy to their shift or from lunch more than 14 times could be disciplined. Demirelli had a rare condition known as brittle bone disease and was confined to a wheelchair due to it. Convergys had very limited handicapped spaces in the parking lot which made it difficult for Demirelli to arrive on time to work. He tried arriving an hour early, parking at a nearby movie theater, and switching shifts. The layout of Convergys’s call center floor was clustered. There were hundreds of cubicles for call representatives to use and there were no assigned cubicles, so many representatives would claim the first cubicle they saw empty. Where many of the employees could just scan the tops of the cubes, Demirelli was forced to maneuver around until he found a vacant cube. At first Demirelli’s supervisor would reserve a cube for him but that supervisor was replaced and the new one refused to accommodate him in that manner. Demirelli also requested a grace period to get to his cube on time but that request was also denied and his employment was soon terminated.

The issue to be determined is whether Convergys failed to accommodate the disability which would be a violation of the Disabilities Act. According to the ADA, an employer must “make a reasonable effort to determine the appropriate accommodation.” The employer needs to first look at the job or position and identify any limitations that may be caused by the disability and then the employer needs to consult with the employee to identify potential alternatives or accommodations. When Demirelli was hired in early 2001 Convergy’s knew that he was restricted to a wheelchair his disability was due to an unusual condition known as brittle bone disease. As state before Convergys’s had a handicapped parking lot but their handicapped parking spaces was large enough parking space for two special-needs van that use ramp or motorized lift gate but by the time Demirelli arrive for work those two handicapped parking are unavailable.

In their defense Convergys’s pointed to the case of Kreutzer v. Rockwell Collins Inc, 398F. 3d 1040 (Cir.2005), to support its proposition that a disabled employee must request a specific reasonable accommodation. In that case, Kreutzer, a disabled employee, needed to prove her proficiency with four-different types of machines in order