In a previous blog, we talked about marijuana and the ADA. What about narcotics that are prescribed by a physician subsequent to a surgery? Would it be a reasonable accommodation to allow the plaintiff to return to work while using narcotic medications? It’s a justiciable question given the facts it had before it says
Federal Cases
Federal laws/regulations allowing for discrimination can trump the ADA (even if adopted at the state level)
By William Goren on
The United States Supreme Court and the regulations implementing title I of the ADA allow for a complete defense to discrimination against persons with disabilities when the discrimination is necessary in order to comply with other federal law or regulations. Albertsons v. Kirkingburg 527 U.S. 555, 570, 570 n.16; see also id. at 578 (J.…
Service dogs and the Department of Justice regulations: can they be challenge successfully?
By William Goren on
In a comment to the service dog v. therapy dog blog entry, I promised that I would follow-up with an exploration of whether the Department of Justice regulations with respect to service dogs and how they differ from therapy dogs and the corresponding difference in treatment with respect to the ADA, would survive a challenge…
Recent EEOC guidances and a recent fact sheet
By William Goren on
It has been a little while since we talked about employment law here. Now, it is time to get back to it. Recently the EEOC issued four guidances on four different disabilities, diabetes, intellectual disability, cancer, and epilepsy. They also issued a fact sheet on the mental health provider’s role in…
Issues to be aware of under title III of the ADA
By William Goren on
Posted in Federal Cases, Title III
Julie Mills, a Columbus, Ohio attorney whose blog appears in my blogroll, brought to my attention in a linked in group that we are both members of (ADA for Attorneys, Architects, and Access Professionals), a case which discusses several key issues under title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. That case is Parr v.
Class-action and persons with disabilities R.I.P.?
By William Goren on
Here’s a fact. No two disabilities even the same ones are the same. Accordingly, it makes perfect sense that the ADA requires an individual analysis throughout. Further, under both title I and title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act, in addition to having a disability, the person must be qualified. That is, capable of…
ADA and the Applicable Statute of Limitations
By William Goren on
The whole idea of the statute of limitations is to prevent stale claims. Just about everything has a statute of limitations (the only two exceptions that I can think of our claims arising under USERRA and capital murder claims). The ADA does have statute of limitations to deal with, though it is not stated in…
Bringing sanity to mixed motive jury instructions
By William Goren on
In this blog, I’ve written about mixed motive jury instruction twice. In the first entry, we explored whether mixed motive jury instructions with respect to the ADA were even possible after Gross v. FBL Financial. In the second, we explored whether where there is more than one cause of action to be…
McDonnell-Douglass and the ADA; An Imperfect fit
By William Goren on
In employment discrimination cases, there are two kinds of cases (those involving direct evidence and those involving indirect evidence). Direct evidence cases are the proverbial smoking gun. That is, the plaintiff has explicit evidence that discrimination occurred. However, in most situations, it is difficult if not impossible to find direct evidence, rather things taken together…
Air Carrier Access Act revisited: just what is preempted?
By William Goren on
Previously, I have written two different blog entries dealing with the Air Carrier Access Act. In the first, I talked about whether a private cause of action existed. In the second, I talked about whether the Air Carrier Access Act regulations being so pervasive preempted state laws. This entry concerns a slightly different issue.…