Today’s blog entry deals with the question of whether taking adverse action against a person who does not currently not have a disability but where the employer fears will develop a disability in the future is actionable under the ADA. We will discuss two cases going opposite ways. They are: EEOC v. STME, LLC d/b/a/
Regarded as
DOJ Final Rules Implementing Title II and Title III of the ADA
By William Goren on
Last week, the Department of Justice came down with their final regulations implementing the amendments to the ADA with respect to title II and title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I had previously written on these proposed regulations back in February 2014, and so I thought it would be a good idea to…
Addiction/Perceived Addiction in the Workplace; the View from the Sixth Circuit
By William Goren on
Today’s case is a case out of the Sixth Circuit, Ferrari v. Ford Motor Company, decided June 23, 2016. It deals with the issue of what happens when an employer perceives an opioid addiction. As is typical, my blog entry is divided into categories: facts; court’s reasoning; and takeaways. The reader is free to…
You’re Not Going to Believe This, but I Say Appeal This One to the Supremes before, after, or In Lieu of an En Banc Hearing
By William Goren on
First off, I hope that everybody who celebrated Good Friday and Easter had a happy one. Today’s case, Gentry v. East-West Partners Club Management Company, Inc. is a published decision from the Fourth Circuit, which came down on March 4, 2016. I don’t believe in all my blog entries that I have ever taken the…
If This Decision Holds, Game Changer: Applicable Statute of Limitation for ADA Claims Redux
By William Goren on
I
Introduction
One of the publications that I subscribe to is Disability Compliance for Higher Education . It is an excellent publication for anyone involved with ADA compliance in higher education. Its audience is mainly University 504 and ADA coordinators, University administrators, and professors. One of the cases it featured in its most recent publication…
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…
A triple play: causation, adverse action and hostile environment all in one case
By William Goren on
Happy new year everyone!
Hope everybody had a happy and safe new year. Back to it!
Today’s case is Sherman v. County of Suffolk, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177780 (E.D. NY December 29, 2014). The case talks about numerous issues: causation under title I and title V of the ADA; adverse action under title…
Litigation strategy and how to make ADA matters worse
By William Goren on
One of my favorite songs of all time is “The Gambler” by Kenny Rogers. For those who don’t know, it is a song about poker, but it might as well be a metaphor about litigation. The chorus of the song goes, “you gotta know when to hold em, know when to fold ’em, know when…
Temporary disabilities and the ADA
By William Goren on
Posted in ADA, Final Federal Regulations, Proposed Federal Regulations, Title I, Title II, Title III
In the first and second editions of my book, understanding the ADA, I cited to the case of Burch v. Coca-Cola Company, 119 F.3d 305 (5th Cir. 1997), for the proposition that temporary disabilities are not protected by the ADA. However, I did say as a preventive manner, it made sense to treat temporary…
The ADA and Bar Examiners: Uphill Climb for Wannabe Attorneys with MH
By William Goren on
Does the Americans with Disabilities Act apply to bar examiners? If it were only that simple. Taking the approach with respect to entries that I’ve developed recently, part one discusses the facts of the case. Part two discusses the court’s reasoning and my responses. Finally, part three give the reader takeaways. The reader is free…