Jump to Navigation

Posts tagged "ADA"

Ondricko v. MGM Grand Detroit, LLC, No. 10-2133 (6th Cir. Aug. 8, 2012); Rosebrough v. Buckeye Valley High school, No. 10-4057 (6th Cir. Aug. 8, 2012)

The same panel on the Sixth Circuit publishes two opinions on the same day reversing summary judgment. In the first, a gaming floor supervisor revives a case against a casino for selectively enforcing a workrule about bad deals, owing (allegedly) to race and sex. In the second, the court reminds the lower court that the Americans with Disabilities Act is special because - in contrast to There statutes - it specifically protects against discrimination in training.

EEOC v. The Picture People, Inc., No. 11-1306 (10th Cir. July 10, 2012); Bertsch v. Overstock.com, No. 11-1428 (10th Cir. July 10, 2012)

The Tenth Circuit issues two decisions today, both involving the EEOC - in different capacities. In the first, the court splits 2-1 on an ADA reasonable accommodation and retaliation case brought by the Commission itself, holding that a photography studio was not required to accommodate a deaf photographer by providing an ASL signer. In the second, in which the EEOC appeared as amicus, the court affirms summary judgment on a sex harassment claim but reverses on a retaliation claim.

EEOC v. Service Temps Inc., No. 11-10262 (5th Cir. Apr. 26, 2012)

Here's yet another jury verdict in favor of a worker, in a seldom-seen case of a frustrated job seeker barred from applying for a job on account of deafness. The Fifth Circuit affirms liability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, injunctive relief and the award of damages: $14,400 in back pay, $20,000 in compensatory damages for emotional pain and suffering, and $68,800 in punitive damages.

Román-Oliveras v. Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, No. 09-1503 (1st Cir. Aug. 18, 2011); Jones v. Nissan North America, Inc., No. 09-5786 (6th Cir. Aug. 19, 2011) (non-precedential)

Today we log two wins for ADA "regarded as" disability discrimination claimants. In the First Circuit, the panel holds that a district court too hastily dismissed a complaint of disability discrimination, alleging that the employer refused to assign a mentally-ill employee anywhere in the workplace. In the Sixth Circuit, the panel (in an unpublished opinion) astoundingly overturns a jury verdict for the employer - and orders entry of judgment for the employee - where the company placed the plaintiff on involuntary medical leave based solely on an unclear state-court order and without an independent examination of the employee.

Valle-Arce v. Puerto Rico Ports Authority, No. 10-1102 (1st Cir. July 8, 2011)

One of the critical stages in many disability discrimination cases is when the employee gets a new manager or supervisor, who does not understand - or is insensitive to - an accommodation formerly extended to a person with a disability. As this First Circuit case reveals, a botched switch in the gears can create a triable issue of fact for a jury about whether the employee was denied reasonable accommodations.

Miller v. Illinois Dep't of Transportation, No. 09-3143 (7th Cir. May 10, 2011)

Plaintiff, a fired bridge crew member in Southern Illinois, wins the opportunity to try his claims of ADA regarded-as disability discrimination and retaliation against IDOT. Plaintiff claims that the agency believed him to be substantially limited in the major life activity of work, owing to his acrophobia, and that he was fired after complaining about being given dangerous duty beyond his limitations.

Crabill v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Board of Education, No. 10-1539 (4th Cir. Apr. 20, 2011)

It is a shame for the development of the law when useful opinions like this one go unpublished. A 2-1 panel of the Fourth Circuit wades into two EEO issues that divide the circuits, holding in this ADA case that  (1) appellate review of a district court order granting equitable tolling of the 90-day limitations period is only for abuse of discretion, not de novo; and (2) reasonable accommodation of an employee's disability may require advising the employee of available opportunities to transfer.

Mauerhan v. Wagner Corp., No. 09-4179 (10th Cir. Apr. 19, 2011)

One of the conundrums Congress left us in the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act is how to draw the line between those "currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs," 42 U.S.C. § 12114(a) -- who are not protected from discrimination under the Act -- and those recovered or otherwise not "engaging" in such drug use under 42 U.S.C. § 12114(b). As the latest decision on this subject reveals, applying these sections to real-life facts is akin to nailing Jell-o to the wall.

subscribe to this blog's feed subscribe to this blog's feed

tell us about your case

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy

facebook twitter linked in

our office locations

Outten & Golden LLP
685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor  
New York, NY 10017  
Phone: 212-245-1000
Map and Directions

Outten & Golden LLP
161 North Clark Street
Suite 1600
Chicago, Il 60601  
Phone: 312-809-7010
Map and Directions

Outten & Golden LLP
One California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: 415-638-8800
Map and Directions

Outten & Golden LLP
601 Massachussetts Avenue NW
Second Floor West Suite 200W
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: 202-847-4400
Map and Directions