Turner V Hershey Chocolate Usa Case Study

Name: Patel Mukeshkumar

Paper # JANET M. TURNER, Appellant v. HERSHEY CHOCOLATE USA

Word Count: _______

I. Citation: Turner v. Hershey Chocolate USA, 440 F.3d 604 [3d Cir. 2006]

II. Issue and Rule: The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s disability claim. The appellant’s essential accommodation claim went to trial, but court excluded evidence regarding disability. The plaintiff is not estopped by her SSDI and long term disability claims. However, the issue should have been decided by the jury. The court foreclosed to grant the plaintiff was not a qualified individual.

The issue is whether the district court correctly granted summary judgment in the favor of the defendant because the

While employed at the Hershey Chocolate USA, Turners claims have been reasonable essential accommodation on the defendant. In this case, the observing the material facts in the light most positive to the Turner, It is difficult to determine the matter of the law based on the evidence that appellant directly intimidate to its employees or place an undue hardship on the defendant, Therefore, the question whether plaintiff’s can perform the important function of her position with reasonable accommodation is an undefended material fact for the trial. Hershey will have a chance at trial to reverse Turner’s claim by presenting that her proposed accommodation would make in danger the health safety of its employees as a result, an employer is not wanted to provide accommodations to an employee. Moreover, it would carry out an undue hardship that even with the accommodation. Turner would still be unable to perform work on lines 8 and 9. This matter should be used by a jury based upon the completely developed evidence

Therefore, the accommodation of permitting the plaintiff to be exempted from having to rotate between lines 7, 8 and 9 would create the removal of a marginal function and make it a reasonable accommodation. The court noted that neither the written job description for the inspector positions nor the mutual agreement made reference to the rotation of the job. The Job rotation policy had never been the general practice of this company in the past. The court also noted that the inspector position does not exist for the purpose of having employees rotate between lines 7, 8 and 9, the use of a rotation system had no bearing on the number of employees needed to perform the work, and rotating between lines is not a highly desirable function for which plaintiff was exactly hired, Indeed, it is the contrasting of a specialized skill of the employees. The court stopped short of actually deciding that job rotation is not an essential function of this job and leaving that determination for the