Before turning to the blog entry of the day, I should point out that OSHA last week, January 29, 2021, issued a guidance entitled, “Protecting Workers: Guidance on Mitigating and Preventing the Spread of Covid-19 in the Workplace.” It can be found here184185197198198204. Lots of good information in the guidance. Keep in mind, that

Today’s blog entry comes out of the Northern District of Georgia, and it involves the question of what is deliberate indifference in effective communication cases. We have talked about effective communication and deliberate indifference numerous times before in the blog. The case of the day is Nix v. Advanced Urology Institute of Georgia198199. By

195676767187116178228117Airplane

peacock
On a plane? If it ever was…Not anymore.
On a plane? Yes. 

196686868188117179229120

Miniature horse
yes to non-federal governmental entities; yes to places of public accommodations; but not on planes.

Previously, the Department of Transportation came out with proposed regulations on service animals, here121230180118219189696969197

Before starting on the blog entry of the day, if you have not already voted do so. Today’s blog entry is a case, Exby-Stolley v. Board of County Commissioners, Weld County, Colorado17918111819811820567, that I blogged on almost 2 years ago. About two years ago, the 10th Circuit came down with a decision, which

Today’s case is an unpublished decision out of the Northern District of Texas that has potential to be a real sleeper. That is, one of the things that the medical licensing boards and the PHP’s are doing are claiming that ensuring physicians with disabilities are not allowed to practice or can only practice with restrictions

Today’s blog entry is a bit something different. What I thought I would do is discuss several Covid-19 scenarios happening in the real world and see how they apply to the ADA.

I

State of Connecticut’s Crackdown on Mask Exemptions

On August 12, 2020, the Hartford Courant reported that the governor of Connecticut

Today’s blog entry comes from the Fourth Appellate District of the State of California. It is an Internet accessibility case. The difference with this case is that there is a focus on the California’s Civil Rights Act, what they call the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The facts are pretty straightforward. The plaintiff is permanently