Showing 25 posts in Americans with Disabilities Act.

Rigid Compliance with Company Policy May Violate the ADA

August 29, 2018 by Linda K. Horras

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued a decision upholding a jury's guilty verdict against a large national retailer. Although a straightforward application of the Americans with Disabilities Act, this case a great example of how strict enforcement of company policy can run afoul of the Act’s prohibition against discrimination and an employer’s obligation to provide reasonable accommodations. More ›

Positive Result for Employer: New Jersey Federal District Court Holds No Duty to Waive Drug Test for Medical Marijuana Patients

August 27, 2018 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

New Jersey is the latest state to offer clarity on an employer's obligations to accommodate its employees' medical marijuana use. In Cotto v. Ardagh Glass Packaging, New Jersey's Federal District Court held that neither the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("NJLAD") nor the New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act ("CUMMA") requires an employer to waive a drug test as a condition of employment for an employee who uses medical marijuana. More ›

When an Employer Must Accommodate a Full-Time Employee with Part-Time Hours

August 27, 2018 by Linda K. Horras

Working full-time hours is an essential function of a full-time job, right? Not necessarily, said the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in a Hostettler v. The College of Wooster. When the job can be done on a reduced schedule, at least in the short term, employers have a duty to accommodate. More ›

7th Circuit Approves Well-Constructed Lateral Transfer As a Reasonable Accommodation

August 22, 2018 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently determined that an Illinois Sheriff’s Department did not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by declining to provide a deputy his requested accommodation, an SUV, and instead transferring him to a position that did not require driving. The deputy had alleged the Department’s failed to accommodate him by refusing to provide him with an SUV, then retaliated against him by transferring him to a courthouse duty position. More ›

Taking Work Restrictions Seriously: The EEOC Is Targeting “100% Healed” Policies as Systemic Disability Discrimination

July 10, 2018 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

A “100-percent healed” policy refers to a practice or procedure that mandates that an employee be released to work by his physician without any restrictions before he may return to work. For example, if an employee who took FMLA leave for carpal tunnel surgery was released to return to work with a reasonable restriction, e.g., 10 minute break after every hour of prolonged typing, a 100-percent healed policy would prevent the employee from returning to work, perhaps altogether if the restriction becomes permanent. More ›

Trust the Process: Relying on Existing Law or Policy is not an ADA Defense Says Third Circuit

June 25, 2018 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Many times, employers evaluate disability claims by simply checking the boxes. It’s easy to develop tunnel vision, especially when the employer feels the issue is narrowly defined by an existing law or policy, e.g., a law or employer policy requiring that certain employees be vaccinated. However, this narrow frame of mind may cause employers to miss the complete picture. A recent 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals (DE, NJ, PA) decision illustrates the consequences of missing the big picture. In Ruggiero v. Mount Nittany Medical Center, the court addressed the interplay between a hospital’s vaccination policy and the ADA, holding held an employee’s ADA claim could proceed because the hospital failed to engage in the interactive process. The Court held the hospital had a duty to engage in the process once aware of her disability and request for accommodation, regardless of its policy requiring that all employees be vaccinated. More ›

California Employer Win – Multiple Month Leave Without Finite Return Date Is Not a Reasonable Accommodation

March 27, 2018 by Mellissa A. Schafer

A recent Southern District of California court decision provides California employers with additional guidance on what constitutes a reasonable accommodation. More ›

Seventh Circuit Sets Proof Paradigm for ADA Interference Claims

September 28, 2017 by Tom H. Luetkemeyer

Too often, we think of Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) claims in terms of discrimination and failure to accommodate. Employment lawyers typically see interference claims in the context of other employment statutes, such as the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). However, the ADA also includes a provision prohibiting interference. It is unlawful for an employer to “coerce, intimidate, threaten or interfere with any individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his or her having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his or her having aided or encouraged any other individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by the ADA.”  More ›

Seventh Circuit Holds a Multi-Month Leave is Not a Reasonable Accommodation

September 25, 2017 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Last week the Seventh Circuit dealt a blow to the EEOC's continued position that medical leave is a reasonable accommodation when the leave is (1) of a definite, time-limited duration; (2) re-quested in advance; and (3) likely to enable the employee to perform the essential job functions upon return. The panel rejected that position, noting it glossed over the length of the requested leave, improperly transforming the ADA into "an open-ended extension of the FMLA." More ›

EEOC Sues Illinois Employer for Refusing to Provide Disabled Employee Additional Leave

September 1, 2017 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

You have complied with the Family Medical Leave Act by allowing an employee with a serious medical condition 12 weeks of leave. You even provided a few additional weeks even though he has exhausted all available leave. When the employee asks for three more weeks, and you think to yourself “the company has met its legal obligations and can terminate, right?” Wrong—according to the EEOC. More ›

Search

Subscribe via Email

RSSSubscribe via RSS
TwitterFollow us on Twitter

Blog Editors

Blog Contributors

Archives