Seventh Circuit Slams The "Brakes" On The EEOC's Appeal Of AutoZone ADA Defeat
Mondaq News Alerts
As we have previously noted, the EEOC continues to push the envelope on many fronts, including new theories/arguments in cases brought under Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. ("ADA"), such as its recent attack on wellness plans, discussed here.
Most recently, in EEOC v. Autozone, Inc., No. 15-1753 (7th Cir. Jan. 4, 2016), the Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of the EEOC's request for a new trial in a case brought under the ADA where after a five day trial the jury returned a full verdict for the employer. The decision is an interesting read for corporate counsel focused on EEOC litigation and ADA compliance.
What Tips the Scale? Obesity as a Perceived Disability Under the ADA
Lexology
Employers often call with questions about the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as they navigate when and how to make reasonable accommodations for employees with known disabilities. Most are generally familiar with the ADA’s prohibition of discrimination against a “qualified individual”—an individual who can perform the essential functions of the position with or without a reasonable accommodation. A murkier situation arises, however, when an employee alleges discrimination not due to a disability, but for being “regarded as” disabled.
School district sued by former teacher over disability discrimination allegations
The Pennsylvania Record
A Spring Grove teacher is suing the School District of the City of York alleging that he was discriminated against because he is disabled.
Stanley J. Snyder filed a complaint Dec. 28 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against the School District for the City of York alleging violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Pennsylvania Human Rights Act.
According to the complaint, Snyder, a teacher with 20 years of experience, was transferred from the high school in 2012 to teach at a kindergarten through eighth-grade school. The transfer was allegedly forced and after being moved to the new school, the plaintiff found that the teacher who had replaced him was a younger and non-disabled individual, the complaint states. Snyder asked to return to the school but he was allegedly denied.
Snyder suffers from depression, anxiety and stress, the complaint states. He alleges was also denied the accommodation which his disabilities demanded. In November 2014, Snyder claims he was forced to resign from his position, after being denied the return to his desired school again.
Snyder is seeking compensation for all damages received and for the troubles he suffered, as well as legal fees. He is represented by Amanda Snoke Dubbs of the Law Office of Amanda Snoke Dubbs in York.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Case number 1:15-CV-02492
Texas SC says company didn't retaliate against employee for filing Worker’s Comp Claim
Legal News Line
The Texas Supreme Court recently overturned a jury's finding that HVAC company Kings Aire fired an employee because he filed a Workers' Compensation claim.
On Dec. 21, the court rendered a judgment in favor Kings Aire, finding that employee Jorge Melendez had not presented evidence that his termination had resulted from anything other than the enforcement of a neutral absence control policy.
The court supported that a leave of absence may be granted for any reason acceptable to Kings Aire or required by law. A leave generally may not exceed three months, and an employee who fails to return to work within three months of the leave of absence will be terminated.
Tiffany Cox - an attorney at Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart - said the lesson for Texas employers is that their policies must clearly state the outer limit on leaves, and they must be vigilant to enforce that limit in all cases.
Otherwise, they could face litigation.
“The ‘outer limit’ of a neutral absence control policy is determined by the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) if it applies, together with the employer’s own leave policy,” Cox said.
“The policy in the Kings Aire case established an ‘outer limit’ of 12 weeks, but we have seen a variety of time periods used, depending on the nature of the employer’s business. As a general rule, we recommend a six-month period, inclusive of the FMLA.”
Inside Higher Ed (blog)
Last week when I announced this mini series on standards, one might have assumed that I would consolidate the information offered in previous blogs about what standards for which technologies/applications and why I endorse them. One would not be wrong. But I also intend to add two qualitative points to this discussion on standards. The first is grist for the mill today about a challenge specific to higher education accessibility. The second, to be written down the road, is on the special nature of standards in technology and how that special nature creates an interesting feedback loop to law and policy of the Internet.