123.24 Epilepsy, seizure disorders

There was reason to believe that the Respondent violated the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act by placing the Complainant, an epileptic, on an involuntary disability leave of absence where the Respondent could not establish that there was a reasonable probability that the Complainant’s seizures posed a risk of injury to herself or others. Although the Respondent demonstrated that the Complainant, a food service worker, worked near hot equipment, it did not present reliable evidence to establish to any reasonable probability that the Complainant could potentially sustain a burn during the course of a seizure. Moreover, the fact that the Complainant had performed the same job duties for fourteen years without sustaining any significant injury, in spite of the fact she experienced numerous seizures during this time, suggested that the Respondent's concerns were not legitimate. Alt v. Meriter Hosp. (LIRC, 03/27/96).

LIRC correctly concluded that the Complainant’s epileptic condition, which had involved four grand mal seizures while on the job, sometimes causing injury, was reasonably related to his ability to adequately perform the duties of his job so that it was not discrimination for the Respondent to transfer the Complainant to a different position. Reddick v. LIRC (Kenosha Co. Cir. Ct., 03/12/86).

An employer did not discriminate in dismissing an employee from a position as traveling sales manager after the employee suffered a seizure and was ordered by his physician to refrain from driving for nine months. Kirch v. LIRC (Germania Dairy Automation), (Ct. App., Dist. IV, unpublished opinion, 08/28/84).

An employee with grand mal epilepsy whose medication had not totally controlled his seizures and who had been at work during a seizure could be transferred away from the employer's drill press operation. A doctor's recommendation that the employee could safely continue in his job was not conclusive because the doctor had no knowledge of the operation of a drill press and had never visited the employer's plant. Reddick v. Snap-On-Tools (LIRC, 09/02/82).

The employer could not prove that its rule against hiring epileptics for welder positions was justified, where it failed to show that it was reasonably probable that the particular applicant would suffer a future seizure. Chicago & N.W. R.R. v. LIRC (Pritzl), 98 Wis. 2d 592, 297 N.W.2d 819 (1980).

It was not discriminatory to discharge an arborist after he suffered several epileptic seizures, injuring himself and city property. Nordstrom v. LIRC (City of West Allis) (Milwaukee Co. Cir. Ct., 09/24/80).