Before getting started on the blog entry of the week, an update/supplemental information on a couple of prior cases that we have discussed previously. First, EEOC v. William Beaumont Hospital, which we discussed here, resulted in a consent decree. The hospital has to pay the plaintiff $30,000 in noneconomic and compensatory damages. Also, within

Previously, we had blogged on the Supreme Court decision that set forth the major questions doctrine, here. In reviewing that blog entry, there really wasn’t much meat on the bone so to speak in terms of just when the major question doctrine would be employed. That decision suggested that it could be employed any

Congratulations to the Indiana Hoosiers on an undefeated season culminating in the national championship. Also, congratulations to the remaining teams in the NFL playoffs. My Bears lost, but that play to send the game to overtime was incredible.

This week’s blog entry is a non-precedential decision from the Third Circuit decided on October 8

This week’s blog entry will be the last substantive blog entry of the calendar year. As mentioned previously, I will put up the greatest hits of 2025 for the Understanding the ADA blog the week of Christmas.

Turning to the blog entry for the week, on November 19, 2025, the United States District Court

Before getting started on the blog entry of the week, a housekeeping matter, I am thinking that there may be one additional substantive blog for the rest of the year before I do the 2025 greatest hits. My thinking is that one more substantive blog entry after this will appear the week of December 8.

After the amendments to the ADA, it doesn’t make any sense for an attorney to defend on the grounds that a disability doesn’t exist, with a notable exception being where the major life activity of working is involved. It should be a rare situation where plaintiff alleges the major life activity of working considering all