Privacy Issues in the Community College Workplace



The duration of the risk;

 The nature and severity of the potential harm;

 The likelihood that the potential harm will occur; and

 The imminence of the potential harm.

b. The FEHA “Safety-of-Others” Test Similar to the ADA’s “direct threat” test, the FEHA permits an employer to refuse to hire an applicant if the applicant, because of his or her disability or medical condition, cannot perform the job’s essential duties without endangering the health or safety of the applicant or the health or safety of others even with reasonable accommodations. However, unlike the ADA, the FEHA distinguishes between the threat posed to the applicant and the threat posed to others. Disqualification based upon the threat to an applicant requires an employer to show that the job imposes an imminent and substantial degree of risk to the applicant that cannot be cured by reasonable accommodation. 164 The FEHA “safety-of-others” test applies a much more lenient standard for an employer to disqualify an applicant. Rather than showing an imminent threat, an employer need only show that the person would endanger the health or safety of others to a greater extent than if an individual without a disability performed the job.

2. C ASE S TUDY ON FEHA “S AFETY -O F -O THERS ” T EST

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. United Parcel Service, Inc. 165 Defendant United Parcel Service, Inc. (“UPS”), denied driving positions to certain employees because the employees failed to pass UPS's “Vision Protocol,” which requires drivers to have some central vision and some peripheral vision in each eye. The employees alleged that UPS had discriminated against them because of their monocular vision, a disability, in violation of the FEHA. The Ninth Circuit found that the employees were sufficiently limited in the major life activities of seeing and working to fall within the FEHA’s broad definition of disability. However, the court ruled in favor of UPS because UPS had demonstrated that the employees would “endanger the health or safety of others to a greater extent than if an individual without a disability performed the job” and, thus, had satisfied FEHA’s safety-of-others defense. The court noted that even a modest increase in the risk that a problem will occur is significant when the potential consequences of that problem are very serious. The court also emphasized that peripheral vision plays an important role in avoiding accidents and that the monocular driver has less opportunity to see a child or any other pedestrian or cyclist or car darting from the impaired side. Finally, the court held that UPS

Privacy Issues in the Community College Workplace ©2021 (c) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 57