Resolution Agreement: St. Francis Hospital and Medical Center
Supreme Court to Hear ADA Case of Mentally Ill Woman Shot by SFPD
NBC Bay Area
The Supreme Court seems skeptical that the Americans With Disabilities Act requires police to take special precautions when trying to arrest armed and violent suspects who are mentally ill.
Fourth Circuit Says Social Anxiety Disorder Is ADA Disability
JD Supra
The ADA Amendments Act substantially broadened the definition of protected disabled persons under federal law. Prior to ADAAA, federal courts routinely dismissed disability discrimination claims on the basis that the claimed impairment was not recognized as a qualifying disability. Last week, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (which includes North Carolina and South Carolina) demonstrated the breath of coverage of medical conditions under the ADA.
In Jacobs v. N.C. Administrative Office of the Courts, the plaintiff was a deputy courthouse clerk who had been diagnosed with social anxiety disorder (SAD). She claimed that her mental illness prevented her from working at the courthouse front counter, where she would have to deal with members of the public. She requested an accommodation that would excuse her from these part-time duties. According to the plaintiff, the clerk of court refused this request, and terminated her for alleged performance issues shortly after she made the accommodation request. She sued, claiming failure to provide a reasonable accommodation under the ADA, and retaliatory termination.
Lexology
Courts on both coasts have grappled with whether Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applies to websites of businesses that have no physical place of business where customers go. One judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts answered this question in the affirmative, holding that Netflix’s video streaming website is a “place of public accommodation” covered by Title III of the ADA, even if the website has no connection to a brick and mortar business. In contrast, two judges from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California have held that Netflix and eBay’s websites are not covered by Title III of the ADA because they did not have a connection to an actual, physical place of business. These judges were all purporting to follow Court of Appeals precedents in their respective circuits, although those precedents did not specifically concern websites. Title III of the ADA and its regulations provide little guidance because they were drafted before the Internet became so ubiquitous.
Eddie Bauer ADA Case Revived by 9th Circuit
Courthouse News Service
The 9th Circuit revived claims from a disabled man who sued Eddie Bauer within a week of shopping at one of the retailer's outlet stores in California.
Chris Kohler's 2010 complaint against Bauer stemmed his purchase of a shirt from one of its store in Cabazon, Calif.
Courthouse News records show that just last month, a plaintiff with the same name filed four federal complaints in Los Angeles against various businesses under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
When Kohler eventually went to trial against Bauer over three alleged obstacles in the store, he took issue with three obstacles that allegedly prevented his use of the store: impermissibly high checkout counters, a too-long bench in the dressing room, and barriers in the store's aisles.
After a two-day trial, a federal judge found that Kohler had not proven that any of those alleged barriers violated the ADA or California law.
With regard to the store aisles, the court considered but did not give much credit to Kohler's "vague" testimony about the clothes on the floor that he said made it difficult for him to get around.
The court also rejected Kohler's claims about the bench, finding that, despite its 60-inch length, it qualified as an "equivalent facilitation" because Kohler was able to make a parallel transfer onto it.
On both of these points, a three-judge panel for the 9th Circuit affirmed judgment Friday for the retailer.
The trial court had also rejected Kohler's about the check-out counter, citing his failure to submit any evidence to support his claim.
Though Kohler tried to admit photos that he claimed would show the counter was taller than 36 inches, the statutory maximum, he missed the deadline and the photos were excluded.
Kohler thus offered only his own opinion about the counter's height, saying he remembered it stood a foot higher than his lap and thus must have been 39 inches high.
Bauer meanwhile told the court that it met accessibility requirements regardless of the counter's height because it has a policy of making clipboards available to customers.
Citing Justice Department guidance that clipboards constitute only a temporary dix for too-high counters, the appellate panel reversed on this issue Friday.
When assessing the counter's height on remand the court must weight the credibility of Kohler's testimony against the other evidence, according to the ruling.
Strong v. Valdez Fine Food, a decision that the trial court relied on in ruling against Kohler, has since been overturned by the 9th Circuit, the panel said.
Given the trial court's reliance on a decision that has been overturned, it must reconsider the sufficiency of Kohler's testimony, according to the ruling.
The ruling closes in affirming that Eddie Bauer is not entitled to attorneys' fees.
Judge J. Frederick Motz wrote for decision for the panel.
EEOC Sends Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on ADA and Wellness Programs to OMB for Clearance
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on March 20 voted to send a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on the interplay of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) with respect to wellness programs to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance.
This proposed rule, which was approved by a bipartisan vote, would amend the regulations implementing the equal employment provisions of the ADA to address the interaction between Title I of the ADA and financial incentives as part of wellness programs offered through group health plans.
The submission of the NPRM to OMB represents the start of the regulatory process. After OMB approval, the proposed rule will be published in the Federal Register for a 60-day public notice and comment period. The NPRM cannot be made public prior to its publication in the Federal Register.
mySanAntonio.com
A federal jury today awarded nearly $28,600 to an Iraq War veteran who sued his now-former employer, a Schlumberger Ltd. subsidiary, over his request to bring a service dog to work to help him cope with his post-traumatic stress disorder.
Condominium rentals can impact ADA compliancy rules
The News-Press
Q: In a condominium that permits short term rentals, must the property be ADA compliant and who must make these modifications or alterations?