Today, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar. In that decision, the United States Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling with Justice Kennedy being the swing vote, held that mixed motive is dead with respect to retaliation claims under title VII of the Civil
Legal narcotics and the ADA
By William Goren on
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 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.…
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…
Negligence/negligence per se and title III of the ADA: Opportunity for personal injury attorneys to expand their practice
By William Goren on
Posted in State Cases, Title III
A mobility impaired person uses a motel. It turns out that motel does not meet the ADA guidelines for architectural accessibility. As a result, a person suffers personal injuries as a result of that inaccessible feature. Or, a person goes to a theater and despite asking for help from theater personnel does not receive any.…
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…
Service Dogs v. Emotional Support Animals
By William Goren on
One of the confusing issues out there is the difference between a service dog, emotional support animal, and a therapy dog and why it matters. 28 C.F.R. § 35.104 and 28 C.F.R. § 36.104 (the sections of the federal regulation that apply to service animals for public entities and for places of public accommodations respectively),…
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…