What I gathered from the article was that she was able to meet essential job functions when given reasonable accomodation (the practice time, scheduled during non-peak hours, etc). I don't see a company bending over backwards - I see a company making an effort (i.e. the first two managers), then came the new manager, and suddenly she couldn't cut it.
I work in HR - I've investigated a ton of claims like this. 99 times out of 100, the employee could not meet essential job functions even with accomodation. I have red flags going up on this one. If an employee can perform with accomodation for two years, then suddenly they can't with a new manager ... well, that usually tells me that Mr. Manager was being unreasonable.
I wish I could've investigated this claim. Would've been an interesting one.
One of the problems with the ADA is that "reasonable accomodation" has become something far different. Initially the bill pretended that minimal expenditures ($300) were all that were required. Now apparent the sky is the limit.
For two years this woman did not have to do the job and the managers (probably out of fear of the lawyers) did nothing about the situation. Then a manager came in who decided enough was enough.
I mean she could not even make the basic drinks. Now I suppose she could have been kept on to sweep floors, clean things etc but that would have only produced another lawsuit when she decided she could do more. The ADA is an absurdity and should be scrapped.
Because of ADA, for example, the Chicago Transit Authority has put wheelchair lifts on all buses at the cost of millions of dollars. I ride the bus every work day and have seen less than a handful of riders in wheelchairs (what kind of idiot would go out in a wheelchair in a Chicago winter?) who can call CTA and have a special bus pick them up at their homes or jobs. Thus, the per ride cost is astronomical probably in the hundreds of dollars. Sickening waste of public resources.