Mr.

Jack is a person with disability who can still perform his essential job function as a
jackhammer operator.
Does HR is unethical for allowing him to still operate the jackhammer despite of his
disability?
First Mr. Jack is a QUALIFIED individual with a disability as he can perform the
essential functions of the position with or without reasonable accommodation (ADA).
The ADA states that individual with a disability requiring the accommodation must be
otherwise qualified.
With his KNOWN physical disability and him being qualified, HR shall be obligated to
provide a reasonable accommodation as long as it would not cause undue hardship to
the company and/or its operation. "Undue hardship" is defined as an "action requiring
significant difficulty or expense" when considered in light of a number of factors.
If Mr. Jack refuses to accept a necessary reasonable accommodation to perform his
function and/ or to eliminate a direct threat, he may be considered not qualified/ unfit to
remain in the job.
So as to the question whether it is ethical for the HR to allow him to remain on his current function, it
YES.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7277 . AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE REHABILITATION, SELF-
DEVELOPMENT AND SELF-RELIANCE OF DISABLED PERSONS AND THEIR
INTEGRATION INTO THE MAINSTREAM OF SOCIETY AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

[ REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10524 ] AN ACT EXPANDING THE POSITIONS RESERVED FOR
PERSONS WITH DISABILITY, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7277,
AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE MAGNA CARTA FOR PERSONS WITH
DISABILITY