Protection for the Growing    Number of Diabetic Americans

Can a person’s unusual eating habits be protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)? A diabetic’s need to eat frequently may be covered if it is related to the disease. Although diabetes can be treated, those with the disease are never fully “cured.” Successfully managing the condition can require daily tasks such as monitoring blood sugar, taking medication, and snacking at regular intervals.

Court: No-Eating Policy Did Not Reasonably Accommodate Diabetic     Rebecca Fraser worked as a senior account specialist at United States Bancorp and suffered from type 1 diabetes.      According to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Fraser's diabetes was considered "life-threatening" and "brittle," meaning that her blood sugar levels are very difficult to control be cause her glucose levels tend to swing fairly quickly high or low."     To manage her disease, she followed a strict regimen that included four or more daily blood sugar tests, multiple insulin or glugacon injections and frequent eating.      However, the practice of eating frequently violated a bank company policy that prohibited employees from eating at their desks.     One day when Fraser's blood sugar was low and she felt disoriented, she requested that an exception be made to the no-eating policy. Her supervisor denied the request and "told her to come back when she had an intelligent question to ask," court documents state.     Fraser became more disoriented and passed out in the lobby of the bank.     After complaining to management, Fraser was later fired and contends it was in retaliation. She sued her employer under the ADA, claiming that her diabetes limited a major life function — eating — and her employer failed to accommodate her disability. Although the district court ruled against Fraser on the grounds that she had not adequately proven her disability, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld her claim. (Fraser v. United States Bancorp, CA9, No. 01-36018, 9/8/03)

One court case highlights the need for employers to accommodate the special needs of diabetics when it comes to eating. (See right-hand box for details.) A diabetic who worked for an Oregon bank was not allowed to eat at her desk even though her blood sugar had dropped to a dangerously low level. An appeals court ruled that in her case, frequent eating was necessary and protected under the ADA.  

The case is of interest because more Americans are being diagnosed with diabetes and diabetic employees are increasingly asking for protection under the ADA.

Definition of Disability

The ADA describes an individual with a disability as someone who has physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, including caring for oneself, performing, manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.

In the case of the diabetic working at the Oregon bank, the employee claimed the major life activity was eating.

This was not the first time that a court ruled that eating was a major life activity under the ADA but it is part of a growing trend. In another case, for example, an insulin dependent diabetic was able to proceed with a disability discrimination case because he showed that his ability to eat was substantially limited. He had been turned down after applying for a conductor job. (Lawson v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 245 F.3d 916 (7th Cir. 2001))

What this Could Mean for Businesses

These type of court cases could increase the number of employees who qualify as disabled under the law.

However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals emphasized that personal food preferences do not constitute a disability under the law.