Does the ADA Require Drink Dispensers to Talk?
Lexology
In April 2015, Mary West and Patricia Diamond visited a Moe’s Restaurant, where they attempted to use a “Freestyle” drink dispenser, which allows customers to select from over 100 different beverages using a touch-screen interface. Both women are blind, and neither could use the dispenser’s touch screen. They asked for assistance from restaurant employees, but were ultimately assisted by another customer instead. Eleven days later, they filed a class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against the franchisee that owned the restaurant, claiming that it violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA,” “the Act”) by using machines that lacked “adaptive features,” such as a screen reader with audio descriptions and tactilely discernible control buttons that enable blind customers to use the dispensers independently.
In December 2015, siding with the restaurant, Judge William Pauley III dismissed the action. Understanding his reasons—and why his decision is important—requires a short review of the “auxiliary aids” standard of the ADA.
Parental Rights of Mentally Ill at Stake in Conn. ADA Case
Connecticut Law Tribune
On one side is the Connecticut Department of Children and Families, whose mission is to protect the welfare of children. On the other are a handful of advocacy groups who object to DCF's handling of a long-running case involving two parents with mental health issues.
In the middle are Karin Hasemann and Joseph Watley, who simply want their children back. Recently, they were given a glimmer of hope when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit gave them a small, but significant, legal victory. The Second Circuit said that a Connecticut federal court was too quick to dismiss a lawsuit in which the couple claimed that DCF violated the Americans with Disabilities Act in its handling of a termination of parental rights case. The matter was remanded to the Connecticut federal court, where the couple is seeking $1 million.
EEOC Sues Franchisee for Firing HIV-Positive Worker
Blue MauMau
A Subway restaurant in central Indiana has been sued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for firing one of its employees who revealed he was HIV-positive.
According to Advocate.com, the Indianapolis TV station WTHR reported last fall that EEOC had filed a federal lawsuit against the Sheridan Subway to acquire back pay and punitive damages for the "John Doe" employee. His attorney, Laurie Young, stated that he was fully capable of working and was experienced in the restaurant industry. Young's counsel stated,
“He was terminated solely because of stereotypes his employer had regarding persons with HIV.”
EEOC explained that firing the worker under these circumstances was a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and it was therefore a clear case of employment discrimination. The agency said one week after he had been employed, he told his supervisor that he was HIV-positive.
Missoula Marathon Settles Discrimination Case
Runner's World
Race organizers removed restrictions on hand cyclists and wheelchair athletes, reimbursed the plaintiff for his legal fees, and will undergo training on how to accommodate athletes with disabilities.
Managing the employment relationship in Tennessee
Lexology
Tennessee Disability Act
This is an anti-discrimination statute (i.e., disability) applicable to employers with eight or more employees. The interpretation and enforcement of this statute follow closely those of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Although the state statute does not include a “reasonable accommodation” requirement, some Tennessee case authority implies such a requirement (T.C.A. § 8-50-103).
Tennessee Family and Medical Leave Act
This is a leave statute for the birth or adoption of a child (available to males and females). It provides for unpaid leave of up to four months and is applicable to employers with 100 or more employees at one worksite (T.C.A. § 4-21-408).