CO4: Apply legal concepts to business scenariosCO9: Evaluate employment laws affecting business.CO10: Define the ethical environment that is applicable to the business world.Title I of the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112(a), requires employers to provide reasonable accommodation to otherwise qualified persons with a disability to enable them to work. The federal government has a similar requirement under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794. A “reasonable” accommodation a determination to be made on the facts by the employer on a case-by-case basis. Ultimately, the decision an employer makes could be reviewed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (or an equivalent state agency) or a court if the employer’s action is challenged by an applicant or employee.PROMPT: CASE STUDYAdele, a fully qualified specialized registered nurse, is deaf. She relies upon an American Sign Language (ASL) interpreter to communicate with hearing individuals in the workplace. Adele applied for a job with Marigold Mercy Receiving and Trauma Center (“MMRTC”), a large medical center that, with all its hubs and subsidiaries, grossed $1.3 billion annually. Adele received a job offer, conditioned upon a health screening and clearance by MMRTC’s occupational health department. She was in fact cleared, but she notified MMRTC that she needed an ASL interpreter as an accommodation for her hearing impairment. The annual salary, including benefits, for her position was approximately $75,000. Upon investigation, MMRTC calculated that the annual cost to MMRTC for the ASL interpreter accommodation would be $120,000; there was the need for a full time interpreter for Adele, plus several situations where two ASL interpreters would be required. In considering Adele’s request for accommodation, the hiring supervisor wrote in an email that the department’s annual budget allocation could not absorb the “excessive cost of the additional personnel” of ASL qualified interpreters “for this one nurse.” MMRTC determined the additional salary and overhead for the interpreters would be an “undue hardship,” making the accommodation unreasonable. Therefore, MMRTC did not hire Adele. Did MMRTC violate ADA?DISCUSS:1. Was MMRTC within itslegal rightsto refuse the accommodation and thus not hire Adele on the basis of undue hardship? In considering this case, you should review:(a) what is considered a “reasonable” accommodation under ADA;(b) sample accommodations listed by ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12111(9) (2018)) and the EEOC (www.eeoc.gov); and(c) the definition and standard for “undue hardship” (42 U.S.C. § 12111(10)(a) (2018)); and(d) any case law – what do the courts consider undue hardship?2. Are there ethical considerations involved in this case beyond what is required by the “letter of the law” and if so what are they?Please support your thoughts and conclusions with reasoned analysis and your research.