Good job description details duties for all to see
Published 10/06/99

A detailed, written job description can benefit both the employer and the potential applicant. Preparing a detailed, written job description prior to seeking applicants will make the employer analyze what job functions are essential for a particular job position to maximize the benefit to the employer given the existing strengths and needs of the employer=s current work force.

Another significant benefit to defining job functions ahead of time, and uniformly, is that if an employee later questions the job requirements, it will be that much more difficult for an employee claiming illegal discrimination to prove that a performance-based reason for a disciplinary or corrective action was in reality a pretext when that requirement is within the written job function. Furthermore, if an undesirable task is part of an employee=s written job description, it is difficult for that employee to make a case that management is illegally discriminating by making that employee perform that task. For example, if an employer has a written job function requiring someone in the position of an office assistant to regularly refill the coffee machine and such job functions had in the past been regularly enforced, it would be difficult for a female office assistant to claim that she was being given such a menial task because the male manager has it in for her because he is sexist. Likewise, presuming that an employer has identified in the written job description the time periods upon which the work is to be performed, where it is to be performed, and the need for regular attendance at that place of work, then a disabled employee of an employer subject to the federal American With Disabilities Act would have a more difficult time being successful in arguing that she could perform the essential functions of the job wherein her opinion of those essential functions are different than those previously set forth in writing, by the employer, on the job description. Under the American With Disabilities Act, the employer=s written job description is only one of several factors that may be considered by the court as to whether or not that function is an essential function, yet it could certainly assist the employer in defending a disability discrimination claim.

In an article I authored in this column on August 27, 1998, I discussed the case of Sharon Laurin v. The Providence Hospital and Massachusetts Nurses Association which found that the requirement of a maternity ward nurse to have a days-rotating position in the hospital=s maternity was an essential function of her job, irrespective of whether she could prove that she was disabled and therefore not able to perform that function. The court also cited other jobs where a particular work schedule was an essential function such as: (a) in a night watchman=s job where it is essential to perform that job at a particular time when the premises are not otherwise occupied; (b) in a position of store security it is essential that store security not be abandoned for even a brief period; and (c) it is essential function for a guidance counselor to counsel students at the school during the hours upon the children are in attendance.

Making requirements known up front in the written job description for a job that an applicant applies for can have a great impact in the prevention of and, if needed, the defense of discrimination claims. Even if a court allows a case to go to a jury, it is important to remember that many jurors are employees and they are going to be looking to see whether or not the employer treated the employee or applicant as they would have expected to be treated under similar circumstances. An employer stating what is expected of an employee up front goes a long way in an employer=s argument that it treated the employee fairly.

Therefore, it is prudent for an employer to detail the essential job functions of a particular position including the days of the week and the times of the day the employee is expected to work, where the employee is expected to work (i.e.: is telecommuting acceptable under certain limited circumstances?), and whether the employer requires for this job function that the employee be regularly in attendance during normal working hours.

J. Daniel Marr is a director and shareholder at Hamblett & Kerrigan, PA whose legal practice includes counseling businesses and business persons on a variety of legal issues and advocating on their behalf. Attorney Marr is also an adjunct professor at Daniel Webster College where he teaches business law. You can reach Attorney Marr by e-mail at: dmarr@hamker.com

This information is general information and may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. The information provided should not be relied upon as an indication of the actual state of the law or of future developments. The information contained on the Hamblett & Kerrigan website is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If the information referenced may be of legal importance to you, you should consult with an attorney to provide you with legal guidance and opinion as the the effect of the current law upon your situation.