Hope everyone had a great Easter weekend. The blog of the week is actually a two-for-one. We will discuss an update to a previous blog entry, here. After that, we will discuss a decision from a Colorado appellate court clarifying the rules with
Before getting started on the blog for the week, I wanted to let everyone know that the ABA Law Practice Today just published my article entitled AI and Persons with Disabilities: the Good and the Bad. It can be found here.
Last week, we discussed Acheson Hotels brief in the Laufer case. Also
I hope everyone had a happy holiday weekend. In many places around the world, today is also a holiday as it is Easter Monday.
On April 7, 2023, the Seventh Circuit came down with a decision discussing the de minimis rule when it comes to accommodating an employee’s religious needs. I got to thinking
Today’s blog entry is Short v. City of Rochester, which can be found here. In this case, a young black man with mental illness was killed by the police. His family sues for violation of the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and under §1983. The City of Rochester moved to dismiss all claims. For the
Today’s blog entry is a case from the Eastern District of New York, Martinez v. Gutsy LLC, here, which makes the case for why standalone websites can be a place of public accommodation providing that site is functioning for one of the purposes laid out in 42 U.S.C. §12181(7).
Once again, a person
In numerous blog entries, we have talked about how magic words are not required. We have also talked about staying away from requests for excessive documentation. The question is how do the two work together. A published decision from the 11th Circuit decided on November 9, 2022, Owens v. State Of Georgia, Gov.’s Office
Today’s blog entry discusses two different concepts. The first concept it discusses is what just does “transitory and minor,” mean for purposes of the regarded as exception and for purposes of what I mean when I keep talking about it as a great preventive law approach to deciding when a temporary disability might be protected
Today’s blog entry is a two for one, both dealing in the failure to accommodate space broadly speaking. The first case is Humphrey v. Memorial Hospitals Association, 239 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2001). That case considers the question of whether conduct related to a disability has to be evaluated differently with respect to the
Today’s blog entry deals with the question of what happens when you have an individual with a progressive disability who becomes aware of inaccessibility of a public entity’s facilities. When he becomes aware of inaccessibility issues by the public entity, he files suit but then withdraws it because the accessibility issues are not a problem
Today’s blog entry comes from the title III blog put out by Seyfarth Shaw, which you can find in my blogroll. As always, Minh Vu does an excellent job with the case. However, as readers of this blog know, I will blog on cases discussed by others if I think I have a different perspective