Last column, we discussed changes to the Americans With Disabilities Act. We discussed a case brought by a young man with Cerebral Palsy.

After being transferred to a lesser job, the employee sued under the ADA, claiming in part that the employer failed to engage in an "interactive" process with him concerning his disability and failed to provide a reasonable accommodation.

These two concepts go hand-in-hand. In the typical case, the employee first raises the need for an accommodation. The ADA (both old and new) requires the employer to then engage in a dialogue with the employee to determine what type of accommodation would be effective.

In the reported case, the employer argued that it didn't violate the ADA and stated the obvious: The employee never asked for an accommodation. The case was complicated by the fact that the employee was arguing that the employer perceived him as having a disability, not that he was discriminated against because he actually had one.

The jury found for the employee, awarding him almost $1 million. The court upheld the verdict. This is a difficult case for employers. The employee didn't believe he had a disability and definitely didn't ask for any accommodations. However, the court held that because the employer perceived the employee as having a disability, it was obligated to initiate discussions as to what would be a reasonable accommodation. The lesson for employers? Always be sensitive to the potential need to engage in the interactive process under the ADA. This will be true under the new ADA as well.

Let's look at a second case. Under the ADA, a threshold question is whether an individual has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits (now materially restricts) a major life activity. In a recent case, a college professor argued that agoraphobia met this standard.

Agoraphobia is an anxiety disorder characterized by an intense, irrational fear of open spaces, sometimes occurring in association with panic attacks. In our next article, we will see if the professor was protected by the ADA both under the old and new law.

Opinions expressed solely are those of the writer. James Jorgensen practices law at Hoeppner Wagner & Evans in Valparaiso.