This court case involves the plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the plaintiff intervenor, Chad Farr, and the defendant, AutoZone, Inc. This case was conducted in 2006 on the alleged complaint that AutoZone violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation to Mr. Chad Farr who is visually impaired and denying him a promotion due to this disability.
Farr was diagnosed with retinitis pigmentosa when he was young causing him to have poor peripheral and night vision. This disability also leaves him with tunnel visions. He has 20/50 vision in his right eye and 20/200 in his left deeming him “legally blind” by the Social Security Administration.2 Far requested the reasonable accommodation of allowing a service dog to come with him to work as an accommodation for his lack of peripheral vision. He was approved for a leave of absence to attend guide dog training. When Farr completed his training, he was ready to come back to work a month later, the store manager told him that he was concerned about liability issues of having a dog in the store. Therefore, the manager turned the request in to the regional human resources director, who …show more content…
It wouldn’t affect his ability to do his job, nor would it cause an undue hardship on the company or any of his fellow employees. The manager also said that he “did not have any complaints about Farr’s job performance, he believed that Farr did everything expected of him and did it well.”2 Even though he could do his everyday duties without the service dog, the accommodation would enhance his major life activities and his job
Farr was diagnosed with retinitis pigmentosa when he was young causing him to have poor peripheral and night vision. This disability also leaves him with tunnel visions. He has 20/50 vision in his right eye and 20/200 in his left deeming him “legally blind” by the Social Security Administration.2 Far requested the reasonable accommodation of allowing a service dog to come with him to work as an accommodation for his lack of peripheral vision. He was approved for a leave of absence to attend guide dog training. When Farr completed his training, he was ready to come back to work a month later, the store manager told him that he was concerned about liability issues of having a dog in the store. Therefore, the manager turned the request in to the regional human resources director, who …show more content…
It wouldn’t affect his ability to do his job, nor would it cause an undue hardship on the company or any of his fellow employees. The manager also said that he “did not have any complaints about Farr’s job performance, he believed that Farr did everything expected of him and did it well.”2 Even though he could do his everyday duties without the service dog, the accommodation would enhance his major life activities and his job