What would you do if an employee approached you and said they could no longer work around paint fumes?

A woman lost her job as a production association for a decorative paint company after complaining that the paint was making her sick. Now she’s suing.

The worker had been diagnosed with symptoms of COPD and asthma as early 2016. She worked for three years at the paint facility.

Typically, her job was in the “re-work” department at the company. Her main role entailed removing blemished parts from the production line and sanding them down so they could be repainted.

Occasionally, the worker was called upon to help out in other areas of the plant with greater exposure to paint fumes, but only for a few hours at a time.

In February 2020, she took FMLA leave to undergo a medical procedure unrelated to her eventual breathing problems. Then Covid hit.

When she was finally able to return to work, there was a personnel shortage, so she was assigned to work the paint line for long periods of time. This put her uncomfortably close to the painting oven and its fumes.

The first day, she experienced shortness of breath and difficulty breathing. That afternoon, she had a telehealth visit where the doctor certified that she should not be working around paint fumes due to her asthma.

The worker presented her medical note to HR but it didn’t garner sympathy. Instead, the bosses said her presence in the facility was a liability due to her potential for illness.

The worker skipped the next two days of work. At that point, the company backdated her absences as “unexcused” and summarily fired her.

In response, the worker sued. She claimed the company had violated the law by failing to accommodate her disability.

The company, in contrast, asserted that the worker’s duties as a production assistant including shifting to whatever position in the plant needed support. Additionally, the company pointed out that every area of the facility had some exposure to paint fumes.

The case continued to wind its way through court on appeal until this week, when it is finally is going before a jury.

The case bears watching as a coal-mine canary for possible exposure to disability claims for painting contractors.

After all, if the jury finds that being exposed to paint fumes at a paint company is a form of disability discrimination, then any painter with asthma could potentially do the same.

While the legal jury has yet to return a verdict, the court of public opinion is open. Do you think the disability claim for paint fumes is a reasonable case? How would you react if one of your employees tried to make the same case?