That this case even got this far is depressing.
Cooper v. Dolgencorp, LLC, decided by the Sixth Circuit this week, involved a Coca -Cola delivery merchandiser who delivered products to customer stores, and who also suffers from Tourette Syndrome. Tourette Syndrome, a rare malady that TV writers find infinitely amusing, causes unwanted, involuntary muscle movements and sudden, often loud verbal outbursts. Cooper, the plaintiff, has a rare Tourette Syndrome problem known as coprolalia, which causes him to shout out obscene, profane, or other inappropriate words, including racial slurs. As you might imagine, this behavior sparked many customer complaints.
Cooper’s employer, Coca-Cola, felt that it had to reassign Cooper to a lower-paying non-customer-contact warehouse position. Cooper’s doctor had advised that while Cooper could work as a driver, another employee had to be with him to handle customer contact. That was not feasible.
Cooper sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act, arguing that that Coca-Cola was not accommodating his disability, and violating the law by taking him out of his more lucrative job just because he might suddenly call a customer a “nigger.” Coca-Cola won in a summary judgement.
The Court stated that it was clear Cooper’s Tourette Syndrome made doing his job at the level the job description required impossible, and that there were no reasonable accommodations Coca Cola could make that would allow someone likely to shout out “Cunt!” while dealing with a customer a safe employee to place in a customer service environment. Because customer service was an essential function of Cooper’s job and the driver’s malady made it impossible to perform it, there was no violation of Americans with Disabilities Act.
In my view, an ethical, competent lawyer should have informed the plaintiff that he had no case. However, the comments on the story at the link below are surprising, for many commenters seem to think Cooper was the victim of “discrimination.”
_______________
Source: Volokh Conspiracy
Ethics Alarms 
“Cooper’s doctor had advised that while Cooper could work as a driver, another employee had to be with him to handle customer contact. “
I do not believe that any court would ever consider adding another employee would be considered a reasonable accommodation. My understanding is that such accommodations are typically a one-time cost not recurring expenses.
Obviously if to allow him to serve in the capacity of driver/stocker/CSR he would need to have a second person do the parts of the job he is unfit to fulfill he should not be entitled to the same compensation as drivers who fulfill all the job requirements without a second employee.
Am I the only one wondering how he got hired in the first place?
People with Tourette’s can suppress it, sometimes for days on end. He may well have bit his tongue during the short time each delivery took for his first several weeks. Suppressing it does become mentally taxing, so it may have simply gotten progressively worse, leading to complaints.
The employee’s wage was reduced by… – ahem – 42¢I have no words.
Agreed, Jack—this poor coprolalic seems to have been led on by his lawyer, adding to his misery. (Did Cooper curse his lawyer out after learning his case was dismissed? I wonder.)
I couldn’t help but be reminded of the finale of Season 3 of Curb Your Enthusiasm, “The Grand Opening,” where Paul Sand guest stars as Guy Bernier, a copralalic chef. In that instance, copralalia leads to a comic scene that perhaps could be cooked up only in Larry David’s crazy genius. (Why couldn’t he curse in French? Larry wonders.)
This push for DEI has infected numerous areas both in private industry and, of course, the federal government.
Citing a new push for DEI, the FAA instituted a program that seeks to assign hiring preferences for people with severe physical and mental disabilities. And on their web site, they spelled out the targeted disabilities they’re seeking.
“Targeted disabilities are those disabilities that the Federal government, as a matter of policy, has identified for special emphasis in recruitment and hiring,” the FAA’s website states. “They include hearing, vision, missing extremities, partial paralysis, complete paralysis, epilepsy, severe intellectual disability, psychiatric disability and dwarfism.”
Severe intellectual disability is defined by the Cleveland Clinic as: “People with severe intellectual disability have an average mental age of between 3 and 6 years. They use single words, phrases and/or gestures to communicate, and they usually require regular care and support with activities and daily life.
Such people will then be certified to be assigned to flight crews, air traffic control and other duties. Naturally, any negative results from such hiring will be quietly swept under the proverbial rug.
In this situation involving the Coca-Cola driver, DEI got him hired to a position he should never have been considered for. Actually, I’m somewhat surprised the court sided with Coca-Cola. I would have thought citing the ADA they would have ruled against Coca-Cola.
“Cooper’s employer, Coca-Cola, felt that it had to reassign Cooper to a lower-paying non-customer-contact warehouse position.”
So if customers don’t have to be in contact with someone who swears at then, why should Cooper’s co-workers have to put up with his swearing.