I am back to my Monday postings. In my latest article, just published by the ABA GPSolo magazine, I discussed the legal parameters that an employer is faced with when it comes to dealing with an employee addicted to the Internet. This week’s case continues that line of thought, albeit with respect to alcohol
Final Federal Regulations
Does title II/§ 504 Apply to Employment? and Undue Burden May Still Be Possible Even Where Big Bucks Are Involved
By William Goren on
Just over a month ago, I blogged on the issue of whether title II of the ADA applies to employment . I followed up in a comment to that blog entry discussing whether § 504 applies to employment. On June 15, 2015, the Fourth Circuit in a published decision weighed in.
Direct Threat “Affirmative Defense”: Just What Is the Trier of Fact Supposed to Determine?
By William Goren on
Posted in ADA, Federal Cases, Final Federal Regulations, Rehabilitation Act, Title I, Title II, Title III
This week’s topic came to my attention from Don Davis of the Noble law firm. The question is just what is the trier of fact supposed to determine when it comes to the “affirmative defense,” of direct threat? As is my usual, the blog entry is divided into several categories: history of direct threat; facts;…
Does Title II of the ADA Apply to Employment? Two Views
By William Goren on
This week when I was looking for a case to blog about I came across the case of Torres v. Junto De Gobierno De Servicio De Emergencia, where on April 28, 2015 United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico denied a motion to reconsider. In the original opinion and order, they…
National Federation of the Blind v. Uber Technologies
By William Goren on
Today’s case is National Federation of the Blind of California v. Uber Technologies, Inc.. This case is receiving quite a bit of press, but I thought I would offer my own take on it. As is typical for my blog entries, I have divided the blog into categories: facts; issues; holdings; court’s reasoning; and…
Telecommuting as a reasonable accommodation: EEOC v. Ford Motor Company en banc Decision
By William Goren on
In a comment to this blog entry, I discussed the panel decision of the Sixth Circuit in EEOC v. Ford Motor Company where the panel held that telecommuting was a reasonable accommodation. Before proceeding further, I want to thank Jon Hyman for alerting me through his blog that the en banc decision came down…
Are fraternities subject to title III of the ADA?
By William Goren on
This blog entry is divided into separate categories: introduction; the statutes; the case of the week; and takeaways. You probably will want to read all of it, but you still have the option to focus on any of the categories you like.
I
Introduction
Recently, I ran across this article, in my Google alerts.…
Does a web-based business have to comply with title III of the ADA redux
Previously, I blogged on the oral argument in Earll v. eBay and Cullen v. Netflix. On March 19, 2015, the District Court in Vermont came down with this decision in National Federation of the Blind v. ScribD. That decision bears reviewing.
I
Facts:
ScribD is a California-based digital library operating reading subscription services…
Sheehan Oral Argument; This one is Wild
By William Goren on
Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument (the transcript can be found here), in Sheehan v. City and County of San Francisco, which I discussed in this blog entry. I’ve got to admit that this argument did not go anyway along the lines that I thought it would and here is…
Earll v. eBay and Cullen v. Netflix before the 9th Circuit: Perez matters NOW though nobody seemed to see it
By William Goren on
This week is a two fer. At 11 AM Eastern time, the United States Supreme Court will hear argument in Sheehan (my blog entry on that case can be found here). I promise that I will read the transcript of the argument and post my analysis this week.
This particular blog entry involves…