Articles


Sara Lee did not discriminate against employee with seizure disorder rules court

February 13, 2001

Vanessa Turpin began work for Sara Lee at its Salem, Virginia plant in 1989. In 1992, Turpin began to experience seizures in her sleep. Although she saw a neurologist and took medication, Turpin occasionally experienced nocturnal and daytime seizures. According to Turpin's doctor, she experienced seizures about once or twice a week. The nocturnal seizures were characterized by shaking, kicking, salivating, and, on at least one occasion, bedwetting. After having these seizures, Turpin would feel tired in the morning, as if she did not sleep at all. Turpin typically was unaware that she was having seizures, and would sometimes wake up with bruises on her arms and legs.

The daytime seizures were milder in nature. Over a certain period of time, four or five of the daytime seizures happened during work itself. Turpin could feel the seizure about to start, and would sit elsewhere until the episode passed. The seizures normally lasted a couple of minutes. During these seizures, Turpin began shaking, her face took on a blank expression, and she became unaware of and unresponsive to her surroundings. After the seizure ended, Turpin was able to return to whatever work she had been performing before the episode started.

The seizures also sometimes caused Turpin to suffer memory loss. Turpin would occasionally forget to take her medication, or forget where she was going in her car. Turpin's neurologist, Dr. Joseph Healy, diagnosed her condition as complex partial seizure disorder (epilepsy). Dr. Healy believed that Turpin's seizures would be a "life-long phenomena." Nonetheless, Turpin continued to perform her job and take care of her son.

In 1996, Turpin transferred to a Sara Lee plant in Florence, South Carolina after Sara Lee shut down the Salem factory. At Florence, Turpin worked the first shift as an Auto Packaging Machine Operator. In 1997, Sara Lee closed its Hartsville, South Carolina plant. The company offered the Hartsville workers the opportunity to transfer to another plant.

Under Sara Lee's seniority policy, the former Hartsville workers would keep their seniority, and thus were entitled to displace current workers at the Florence plant. This seniority policy was an internal policy of Sara Lee and was not part of a collective bargaining agreement. A more senior worker from Hartsville wanted Turpin's shift, meaning that Turpin would be forced to take the second or third shift if she wanted to keep her job.

The worker who replaced Turpin had twenty years more seniority than Turpin herself. When Turpin learned that she would be displaced from her shift, she contacted the Human Resources manager to request that she be allowed to remain on the first shift. Turpin presented a letter from her doctor stating that transferring shifts would cause a disturbance of her sleep pattern, and thus worsen her seizures. Sara Lee's doctor stated that the change in shift would not disrupt Turpin's sleep patterns so long as Turpin worked a non-rotating shift, whether it be the first, second, or third shift.

Sara Lee decided not to let Turpin bypass the normal seniority policy. The company gave Turpin three options, all based upon the seniority policy: 1) move to the second or third shift; 2) go on layoff status with recall rights for twelve months (including the right to be recalled to a first shift position should one become available); or 3) take a severance package.

Turpin chose the severance package. Turpin then filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which, in turn, filed a complaint in the United States District Court For The District Of South Carolina. The district court found that Turpin was not disabled within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act and that, even if she was, Sara Lee satisfied its burden of reasonable accommodation.

The EEOC appealed to the United States Court Of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit which upheld the district court ruling.

Source: EEOC v. Sara Lee Corp., 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 268
(United States Court Of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit)
(January 9, 2001)

Most Popular

Need Information?

Please wait... busy