Lou Michels and Rod Satterwhite are partners in the Labor & Employment group at McGuireWoods LLP. Both handle employment litigation on behalf of employers, and advise companies on employment issues regularly.
posted on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 2:27 PM by Rod Satterwhite

Crackberry Addiction an ADA-protected disability?

The New York Sun had an article last week about an upcoming study from the Rutgers School of Business about how workers are becoming addicted to their BlackBerries.  This addiction, will, according to the article, inevitably lead to suits against employers which "could potentially cost corporate America hundreds of millions of dollars."  I say bring it on.  The article, and apparently the underlying study, both lament the fact that people get caught up in the fast-paced world of technology and are therefore unable to truly relax.  Gayle Porter, the professor who is about to publish the study, was quoted as follows:

"If companies develop a culture in which people are expected to be available 24 hours a day, then they should be prepared for the physical and psychological consequences," Mrs. Porter said. "Addicts exhibit extreme behavior and have no control over themselves. So a corporation handing someone a BlackBerry on his first day of work could be seen as enabling, even accelerating, a serious addiction to technology."

Is she serious?  Does this mean that whenever an employer provides employees with tools that increase their efficiency, coupled with setting high performance expectations, they are "enabling" or "accelerating a serious addiction to technology?"  I think not.  Workaholism predates the BlackBerry.  PDA's are just the latest in a long line of devices which, like any other tool, can be used or misused.  To blame the employer for providing that tool just doesn't hold water, especially in light of current employment law.  A disability under the ADA has to be a condition that "substantially limits one or more of [an employee's] major life activities.” 42 U.S.C.§12101(2). In turn, "major life activities" are defined as basic functions such as “caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning and working.” The closest thing the article mentions to a major life activity seems to be the ability to relax on the beach:

These days, though, many executives on vacation carry small arsenals of mobile telephones and computers, even on the beach. From their sandy towels they keep close tabs on both the workplace and the capital markets. Friends and relatives, Mrs.Porter said, are now complaining that no one in these jobs is getting any rest or relaxation.

"Relaxation" is a far cry from a major life activity.  Courts have in fact held that the ADA does not require an employer to provide an environment free from aggravation and stress. Cannice v. Norwest Bank Iowa, N.A., 189 F.3d 723, 728 (8th Cir. 1999).

Nevertheless, it appears that is exactly what this study suggests employers should have to do, by refraining from the deadly combination of 1) providing Blackberries and 2) expecting high performance from their employees.  As an avid user of technology, I am offended at the suggestion that the tool, and not the person, is to blame.  People ought to take responsibility for balancing their own schedules and workload, and it is the refusal to do so, encouraged by studies such as this one, that leads to an environment that fosters the host of frivolous employment lawsuits choking our federal court system today.

Besides, in the end, the system is self-correcting.  In other words, if you see me on a beach typing on a BlackBerry, you have permission to kick the crap out of me.

Comments

# re: Crackberry Addiction an ADA-protected disability?

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 6:58 AM by Pamela
Aren't you being a bit shortsighted? The inability to relax is one step away from being limited in the major life activity of sleeping. Remember sleep?

# re: Crackberry Addiction an ADA-protected disability?

Monday, October 16, 2006 1:19 PM by Rod Satterwhite
Thanks for your comment, and good point. I admit to being a bit flippant (and perhaps short-sighted), but only because I'm concerned about the slippery slope the other way. You're correct that relaxation is related to a major life activity (sleeping), but that doesn't bring it within the purview of the ADA for independent protection. If it did, then eventually the "one step away" activities would likely outnumber the major life activities protected by the act.