Settlement Agreement: Northern Michigan University
As the ADA evolves, don't forget the fundamentals
HR Dive
Employers with a deep understanding of the law’s core requirements will be in the best position to navigate changes.
Disability Employment Month: Focus on employee strengths
Ottumwacourier
Forget what your disabled loved ones can't do. Let's talk about what they can do. That's the advice of vocational counselors around Iowa, especially in October, during Disability Employment Month.
Man says Center City hotel booted him because of epilepsy, service dog
The Pennsylvania Record
An epileptic plaintiff alleges he was refused booking at a hotel in Center City, Philadelphia, due to his disability and the presence of his needed service dog, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
Key California Employment Law Cases: August 2018
JD Supra
EEOC v. BNSF Ry. Co., 902 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2018)
Summary: Requiring job applicant to obtain and provide MRI examination as condition of employment violated ADA by discriminating on basis of perceived disability.
Facts: Plaintiff received a conditional job offer from defendant contingent on plaintiff’s satisfactory completion of a post-offer medical review. During the medical review, plaintiff disclosed he had injured his back four years before, suffering a two-level spinal disc extrusion. Plaintiff’s primary care doctor, a chiropractor, and the doctor defendant’s subcontractor hired to examine plaintiff all determined he had no current limitations due to his back and found no need for follow-up testing. Yet, as a condition to consider him further for the job, defendant demanded that plaintiff obtain an MRI of his back at his own cost or it would treat him as having declined the offer. Plaintiff was in bankruptcy at the time and did not obtain the MRI. As a result, defendant revoked plaintiff’s job offer. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) sued defendant. The federal district court concluded that defendant’s actions violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and it issued a nationwide injunction that prohibited defendant from engaging in certain hiring practices.
Court’s Decision: The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment imposing ADA liability, but vacated the injunction and remanded with instructions for the district court to apply the traditional four-factor test to determine whether to issue a permanent injunction, and if so, the scope of the injunction. The EEOC was entitled to summary judgment because it demonstrated all three elements of a disability discrimination claim by showing that (1) plaintiff had a disability within the meaning of the ADA because defendant perceived him to have a back impairment; (2) plaintiff was qualified for the job; and (3) defendant impermissibly conditioned plaintiff’s job offer on him procuring an MRI at his own expense because it assumed he had a back impairment.
Practical Implications: Requiring a job applicant to undergo further physical examination despite medical evidence of no limitations may violate the ADA based on a perceived disability.
Take Advantage of Workplace Accommodations
Pulmonary Hypertension News
According to the National Consortium on Racial and Ethnic Fairness in the Courts, “National Disability Employment Awareness Month (NDEAM) is a national campaign held in October that raises awareness about employment issues for disabled people, and celebrates the many and varied contributions of America’s workers with disabilities.”