Settlement Agreement: edX, Inc.
EdX, the nonprofit online-learning venture M.I.T. and Harvard formed in 2012, agreed to a settlement with the Department of Justice under which it will make its 450 massive open online courses accessible to blind and hard-of-hearing students, and to those with other disabilities, such as a tremor that makes it difficult to operate a mouse.
EdX did not admit any wrongdoing, and maintains that its online operations are not covered by the Americans With Disabilities Act. The settlement underscores the government’s policy of ensuring that online education is as accessible to those with disabilities as on-campus education is.
edX agrees to make its MOOCS more accessible to disabled users
ConsumerAffairs
You might not know what MOOCS are but they're very big deals in the education world, and now the organization that produces them, edX, has agreed to make them more accessible to disabled users.
MOOCS, by the way, are "massive open online courses" and they are quite the rage in higher education these days. They're used by more than 3 million students taking 450 courses produced by more than 60 universities and institutions.
The courses are free and they run the gamut from computer programming to credit risk management to something called "ethical eating."
But, according to the Justice Department, the MOOCS were difficult or impossible to use for students who have visual or hearing impairments as well as those who have limited manual dexterity -- a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
You, not worker, choose ADA accommodation
Business Management Daily
Under the ADA, employers—not disabled employees—get to choose the reasonable accommodations that will help workers perform essential job functions. This often comes as a surprise to employees.
Of course, the ADA calls for an interactive conversation involving both parties to identify possible accommodations, but ultimately, it’s the employer’s call.
For example, it’s perfectly legal to transfer an employee to another position, even if the employee isn’t happy with the move.
Recent case: Lafreta worked for the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in a department that advised localities on toxic substances in their area.
When she received a poor evaluation criticizing her failure to complete a project on time, Lafreta became physically ill. She called 911 and was taken away in an ambulance.
Her anxiety was so bad that she eventually requested and was approved to go out on FMLA leave.
When she was ready to return, she underwent a psychiatric examination. The doctor recommended that she not work under the same supervisor, since doing so might case her stress and anxiety.
The CDC offered to transfer Lafreta to another position as a reasonable accommodation, but she rejected it. In fact, she never came back to work and the CDC terminated her.
Lafreta sued, alleging failure to accommodate.
The court determined that the CDC had offered a reasonable accommodation to address the doctor’s concerns—a transfer. Lafreta never even offered an alternative. Her case was tossed out. (Dalton v. CDC, No. 14-13654, 11th Cir., 2015)
Final note: Typically in ADA cases, it’s up to the employee to identify an open position for which she is qualified and request a transfer.
But that doesn’t mean an employer can’t take the initiative to identify a position into which a disabled employee might transfer.
Especially when personality conflicts are at work, that may be the best move for all concerned. It gives the employee a fresh start, but also satisfies the employer’s obligation to accommodate.
eBay Need Not Follow Americans With Disabilities Act, Court Rules
MediaPost Communications
Siding with eBay, a federal appellate court refused to revise a deaf woman's lawsuit alleging that the online auction service violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by requiring her to use a telephone to confirm her identity.
“EBay is not subject to the ADA,” the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in a ruling issued this week.
The three-judge appellate panel based its decision on the wording of the 1990 federal anti-discrimination law, which prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in “places of public accommodation."
Federal judges in California have said that phrase means that the ADA only applies in physical “places,” like brick-and-mortar stores, as opposed to online sites. “We have previously interpreted the term 'place of public accommodation' to require 'some connection between the good or service complained of and an actual physical place,'” the appellate judges wrote, referring to a ruling issued in 2000.
The ruling stems from a 2010 lawsuit by Missouri resident Melissa Earll, who alleged that eBay's telephone-based verification policies violated the federal Americans with Disabilities Act as well as California's anti-discrimination laws.
Woman sues Kosciusko County Fair for wheelchair, ADA non-compliance
WSBT-TV
Non-Profit county fair board now struggling to come up with funds to make necessary repairs
LA agrees to spend $1.3 billion to fix sidewalks in ADA case
Los Angeles Times
Los Angeles is pledging to spend more than $1.3 billion over the next three decades to fix its massive backlog of broken sidewalks and make other improvements to help those with disabilities navigate the city as part of a tentative deal being described as a landmark legal settlement.
9th Circuit rules Netflix isn't subject to disability law
Ars Technica
A federal appeals court ruled (PDF) yesterday that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) doesn't apply to Netflix, since the online video provider is "not connected to any actual, physical place."
Disabilities: Job descriptions still critical in defending against claims
HR.BLR.com
The U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals—which covers Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming—recently affirmed summary judgment (dismissal before trial) on behalf of the employer in a case in which the employee claimed that the requirement to be a U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)-certified driver wasn’t an essential function of his position.
Disabilities that pose a 'direct threat' in the workplace
JD Supra
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of disability. The ADA also requires employers to reasonably accommodate disabled individuals who are qualified for a position. However, the ADA recognizes a “direct threat” defense for employers who have been sued for disability discrimination.
A “direct threat” involves a “significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the [employee] or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.” 29 CFR sec. 1630.2(r). If an employer can prove a disabled person poses a direct threat to themselves or others, they are not required to hire or to continue to employ the individual. 29 CFR sec. 1630.15(b)(2). For some time there has been uncertainty on exactly what an employer must establish in order to use the “direct threat” defense in ADA discrimination claims. A recent Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that applies to Oklahoma employers provides valuable guidance.
Mental Health in Workplace: Employee's Privacy vs. Employer's Right to Know
Insurance Journal
How do you stop a mentally ill person from sitting down at the controls of a jetliner, or a nuclear power plant, or from holstering a gun for a night on the beat?
The news that the pilot of the Germanwings jet that crashed Tuesday had been judged unfit for work by a doctor, citing an unspecified mental illness, raises tough questions about mental health in the workplace.
Many With Physical Disabilities Must Deal With Substandard Shelter
WXXI News
A quarter century after the Americans with Disabilities Act, only 5.6 percent of Syracuse’s housing has been constructed since, built up to those new codes. That’s less than a fifth of the national average, according to CNY Fair Housing. Those codes include doorways and bathrooms wide enough for wheelchairs. And front doors that can be rolled through.