Austin Federal Judge Reversed in ADA Case
Law Firm Newswire
Austin-based civil rights and tech attorney Omar W. Rosales scored a second Appellate victory in an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Civil Rights case where U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel's decision to deny attorney's fees was reversed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on December 14, 2017 in 17-50109, Deutsch v. Becerra, Inc.
Yeakel first denied ADA attorney’s fees and was reversed by the Fifth Circuit on August 29, 2016 in 16-50164, Deutsch v. Becerra, Inc. Yeakel then reduced the fees requested and said that any appellate costs were not legitimate expenses. The Fifth Circuit overturned Yeakel’s second ruling, noting that appellate costs are valid expenses, since the appeal resulted from Yeakel's error in the first place.
“I am extremely thankful to the Fifth Circuit for its decision. Once again, the Fifth Circuit has supported disabled Americans in their quest for civil rights. The Americans with a Disabilities Act is a very important legislative tool that allows disabled Americans to participate in our great nation,” noted Rosales, who is a former Marine and graduate of The University of Texas School of Law.
“We will continue to fight for civil rights and civil liberties in the physical and digital sphere,” continued Rosales.
Council to consider ADA contract, sales tax holiday
DadevilleRecord.com
A plan to continue the city’s effort to comply with the American With Disabilities Act and consideration of the city’s participation in the State’s Severe Weather Sales Tax Holiday are on the agenda for Monday’s meeting of the Alexander City City Council.
Like all cities across the country, Alexander City is facing a May 2018 deadline to have a plan in place to become ADA compliant.
The council will consider a contract with Foresite Group, Inc. to begin implementation of the first two phases of the city’s compliance plan.
The ADA prohibits unjustified discrimination based on disability, requires covered employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities and imposes accessibility requirements on public accommodations. Those requirements for public and employee accommodations are far-reaching, covering public restrooms, sidewalks, access to public buildings, parking, seating in public facilities (such as the Sportplex) and more – all the way down to the heights of hand dryers and countertops.
Dallas Home Health Care Company Agrees to Settle Case
HomeCareDaily.com
When AccentCare Inc., a Dallas based home care agency, agreed to pay $25,000 to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit brought against it by the United States Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC), it may have seemed a clear cut and dried case, but there may be more to this situation.
The case involved an IT analyst for the company who claimed she had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and requested time off to consult and visit with her healthcare provider. According to the EEOC lawsuit against AccentCare, the company fired the employee one day after receiving the request, thus violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The EEOC apparently attempted to resolve the case directly with the company, but upon failure to do so filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
As reported by Insurance Journal in the blog, Dallas Home Healthcare Company to Pay $25K to Settle Disability Discrimination Suit:
“According to the EEOC’s suit, an AccentCare IT analyst informed the company that she has bipolar disorder and requested leave in order to see her healthcare provider. The EEOC further said that upon learning of the employee’s disability and receiving her request for leave, AccentCare fired her within one day, without giving proper consideration to her request.
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which protects employees from discrimination based on their disabilities and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to employees’ disabilities as long as it does not pose an undue hardship.”
What was not noted in this case, though, was whether the employee had been formally diagnosed with this condition or if there were other extenuating circumstances. There are also some issues that were not noted in the Insurance Journal publication, including that a federal district court did grant a summary judgment to AccentCare regarding the EEOC’s initial wrongful termination claim.
Also not noted in the article was that the EEOC initially attempted to seek $200,000 from the company for wrongful termination, but the Consent Decree was moved forward as a way to offer ‘reasonable accommodation’ to the former employee.
Journalism at times can make things appear to be completely one-sided when in truth they are far from. Within the home care sector, there are numerous stories about fraud, low wages, and other issues that can make the general public believe it’s a broken system. This is one reason why it’s incumbent upon these agencies and other companies to have a stronger presence within their communities so the average individual who might benefit from these services understands the truth.
Woman Wrongfully Denied Plastic Surgery Because of Her HIV Positive Status
NewBeauty Magazine
An HIV positive Georgia woman who filed a complaint against a plastic surgery clinic with the United States Department of Justice and the United States Attorney's Office for denying her request for a plastic surgery procedure has reached an agreement with the clinic. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia found that Advanced Plastic Surgery Solutions in Duluth, Georgia, had violated the American With Disabilities Act when they refused to even see her for an initial consultation once she revealed she is HIV positive over the phone.
According to the agreement, when the woman attempted to schedule a consultation in September 2013, she spoke to a third-party call center employee, who upon hearing of her HIV status, told the complainant that plastic surgeon Andrew Jimerson, MD, would not perform surgery on her because she has HIV. The woman then went on to contact Dr. Jimerson’s office directly to ask that the doctor reconsider the denial, and was rejected again by an employee at the center. She then sent an email asking the surgeon to reconsider and received an email reply by another APSS employee who stated again that the Dr. Jimerson would not perform the surgery because she had HIV.
Your Turn: What does Mark Brnovich have against the disabled?
AZCentral.com
Courts have repeatedly slapped down the Arizona attorney general's efforts to fight the rights of the disabled. Why is he still at it?