Technical Assistance Document: Protecting the Rights of Persons Living with HIV/AIDS
FMLA and ADA interplay part II: Covered employers
HR.BLR.com
Employers face a challenge when it comes to overlapping issues involving intersecting leave laws. The line separating employee Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) rights and their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) isn’t always clear. Employer rights and obligations can also get murky. It’s imperative that employers know how to determine which laws apply—and which takes precedence over the other when they both do.
This article series highlights the similarities and differences between the FMLA and the ADA. In Part I, we covered the basic statutory obligations of both laws. Here, we identify what employers are covered under each law.
ADA Compliance: Landlords, You're On the Hook
JD Supra
The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination based on disability. Title III of the ADA requires that businesses provide accommodations to persons with disabilities and access that is equal or similar to that available to the general public. What many property owners do not realize is that the ADA applies to landlords, even if the landlord delegates disability accommodation to its tenant. Failing to understand this obligation can create significant liability exposure for a property owner.
Title III of the ADA applies to "public accommodations" (retail, service, and other businesses) and "commercial facilities" (office buildings, warehouses, factories, etc.) operated by private entities, including owners or landlords. A landlord, as an owner of a place of "public accommodation," has an independent obligation to comply with the ADA that cannot be discharged by contradictory provisions in a contract with a tenant.
Appeals court rules in favor of deaf parents of cancer patient
San Antonio Express-News
A federal appellate court has ruled in favor of a hearing-impaired South Texas couple who sued a hospital for failure to provide adequate interpretive services during their daughter’s cancer treatments.
Attention Employers: Accommodating Marijuana Use Is a Cloudy Issue
Bloomberg BNA
The Americans with Disabilities Act doesn’t protect employees or applicants who currently use “illegal” drugs when an employer takes adverse action based on drug use. Courts have said the ADA defines “illegal drug use” by reference to the federal Controlled Substances Act, which classifies marijuana as a Schedule I illegal narcotic.
State laws that authorize medical marijuana use directly conflict with federal disability discrimination laws and parallel state statutes, rendering employers’ legal obligations to individuals with disabilities unclear. Employees who seek permission to use medical marijuana as an accommodation for a disability may have accommodation rights under state medical marijuana statutes but no accommodation rights under disability laws.
Illinois Issues: Does The ADA Work?
WUIS 91.9
Twenty-five years after the landmark federal law, people with disabilities in Illinois still have trouble getting hired.
Knox BOE finds no discrimination against boy with autism
WBIR-TV
Parents of a child with autism advocated for their son's right to an equal education Wednesday night at the Knox County Board of Education meeting.
Matt and Stephanie Anderson filed an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) grievance complaint on Sept. 29, 2014. In April, a Knox County Schools committee found there was no discrimination against the Andersons' son, Jack.
Former delivery technician alleges disability discrimination
The Pennsylvania Record
A Saltsburg man is suing a a medical supply business, alleging he was terminated from his job because of his disability.
Billyjoel Nelson filed a lawsuit July 31 in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against MedCare Equipment and Excela Health, alleging violations of the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.
According to the complaint, Nelson, a delivery technician, was required to submit to a drug and alcohol screening after he was involved in a minor motor vehicle accident in February 2014 as his employer had a drug free workplace. The suit states the screening came back positive for drug that is a component of Fioricet, which was prescribed to Nelson for migraine headache relief in 2009.
Despite providing the defendants with proof of his prescription and a verification note from his primary care physician, which the defendants requested, the lawsuit says Nelson was terminated in March 2014.
The plaintiff alleges he was capable of performing the essential functions of a delivery technician and wasn't allowed to return to work because he was disabled, regarded as disabled and/or had a record of disability within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the PHRA with or without accommodations.
Nelson seeks reinstatement, back and front pay, lost benefits, compensatory and punitive damages, attorney fees, court costs and other relief deemed appropriate by the court. He is represented by attorney Gregory G. Paul of Morgan & Paul in Sewickley.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case number: 2:15-cv-00996-JFC.