In totality, installation of shields would have been so disruptive and costly that it would have “fundamentally changed” the way the Olympia plant operates, thereby creating an undue hardship. See 42 U.S.C. § 12111(10). B. Dr. Razak’s Conditioning Plaintiff’s Release On The Olympia Plant Environment Remaining Unchanged Would Have Posed Additional Undue Burden On Crown.

A determination of undue hardship should be based on several factors, including: o the nature and cost of the accommodation needed; o the overall financial resources of the facility making the reasonable accommodation; the number of persons employed at this facility; the effect on expenses and resources of the facility; o the overall financial resources, size, number of employees, and type and location of facilities of the employer (if the facility involved in the reasonable accommodation is part of a larger entity); o the type of operation of the employer, including the structure and functions of the workforce, the geographic separateness, and the administrative or fiscal relationship of the facility involved in making the accommodation to the employer; o the impact of the accommodation on the operation of the facility. See 42 U.S.C. § 12111(10)(B) (1994); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(p)(2) (1997); 29 C.F.R. pt.

Reasonable accommodations may include: “job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position, acquisition or modification of equipment or devices, appropriate adjustment or modifications of examinations, training materials or policies, the provision of qualified readers or interpreters, and other similar accommodations.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(9)(B). Case 6:16-cv-01998-PGB-DCI Document 65 Filed 11/27/17 Page 19 of 251 PageID 1210 By way of contrast, when the SSA determines whether an individual is disabled for SSDI purposes, it does not take the possibility of “reasonable accommodation” into account, nor need an applicant refer to the possibility of reasonable accommodation when she applies for SSDI. . . .” Id.

Reasonable accommodations may include: “job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position, acquisition or modification of equipment or devices, appropriate adjustment or modifications of examinations, training materials or policies, the provision of qualified readers or interpreters, and other similar accommodations.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(9)(B). By way of contrast, when the SSA determines whether an individual is disabled for SSDI purposes, it does not take the possibility of “reasonable accommodation” into account, nor need an applicant refer to the possibility of reasonable accommodation when she applies for SSDI. . . .” Id.

Rick Hall, who oversees the entire manufacturing process at this facility, testifies this accommodation would have "impacted the ability of the manufacturing facility to continue production. There would have been delays and unproductive periods caused by the increase in time required for [Plaintiff] to get help with the dies, and it would have also created additional delays" for the employees who would have to leave their position to help Plaintiff (SOF, ¶ 27); 42 U.S.C. § 12111; 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(p)(2)(v); E.E.O.C. v. Eckerd Corp., No. 1:10-cv-2816-JEC, 2012 WL 2726766, at *9 (N.D. Ga. July 9, 2012) ("Accommodations that result in other employees having to work harder or longer are often denied on the ground of undue hardship.

Mallatt’s and Bassett’s admissions that they were trying to interview within 24 hours also is in conflict with the requirements of the ADA and Wal-Mart’s policies for accommodating applicants with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12111(9), (B. Cormack Dep. P. 70 L 12- 15; P 82 L 7- 10).

Again, “the ADA defines a “direct threat” as a “significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by reasonable accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(3). The “direct threat” could have been remedied with the reasonable accommodation of a shift re-assignment, which was never considered.

Employers are required to modify workplace policies, including leave policies, as a form of reasonable accommodation. See 42 U.S.C. § 12111(9)(“reasonable accommodation may include . . . modifications of . . . policies . . . .”); see also Barnett, 535 U.S. at 397-98 (stating that an employer may be required to modify a disability-neutral policy to create a reasonable accommodation).

The ADA defines a “direct threat” as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by reasonable accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(3). An “employer must determine whether a reasonable accommodation would either eliminate the risk or reduce it to an Case 1:14-cv-02983-CCB Document 48 Filed 01/21/16 Page 17 of 21 18 acceptable level.”

Reasonable accommodations may include, but are not limited to, making exceptions or modifications to neutral policies or practices, 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(o)(3); reassignment to a different position, 42 U.S.C. § 12111(9)(B); or transfer to a lesser paying job, 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o) app, Altman v. N.Y. City Health & Hosps.