The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Minnesota, recently explained their positions on several important issues relating to disability discrimination. The case involved an employee with severe diabetes who could not work rotating shifts as required by his employer. On what are the essential job functions to be performed with or without accommodation, the Court stated that it would not examine deeply an employer's business decision, which on the surface appears reasonable and nondiscriminatory. Importantly, the Circuit Court adopted the position of other courts that allowing a temporary exception from an essential duty, such as shift rotation, does not demonstrate that the job function is nonessential. Otherwise, an employer who does more than the ADA requests would suffer. It also adopted the position that under the ADA an accommodation that would cause other employees to work harder, longer, or be deprived of opportunities, is not reasonable or required. Rehrs v. The Iams Company (8th Cir 2007).