Illinois appellate court revives disability claim, saying don’t sweat the details

For many years, a discrepancy between the definitions of “disability” in the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA) has gone all but unnoticed except by Illinois employment law aficionados. A recent case shows the IHRA’s unusual wording has essentially been swallowed up by the duty to accommodate.

Sweat of one’s brow

TSA Processing Chicago, Inc., hired Theodore Jackson to operate a metal-cutting machine at its plant in Bensenville, Illinois. Jackson suffers from a congenital condition called ectodermal dysplasia hydrosis. As a result, he has a reduced ability to sweat because of fewer than normal sweat glands or sweat glands that don’t function well. The condition can lead to dangerously high body temperatures.

Jackson informed TSA of his condition, and it seemed to have posed no problems at work for the first six months of 2013. But on July 18, he alleges he “became overheated due to unusual extreme summer temperatures in the workplace and his inability to sweat.” After he couldn’t cool himself down, he asked manager John Torres if he could go home for the day.

Blood, sweat, and tears

Torres told Jackson to wait in the breakroom until plant manager Bobby Medus returned. Jackson says he attempted to comply with the directive, but it was too hot. He tried to call Medus by phone, to no avail. He alleges that out of concern for his own safety he left the plant. Later that day, Torres phoned him to tell him he was fired.