Total Articles: 10
FordHarrison LLP • August 14, 2018
Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires businesses that provide goods and services to the public to remove architectural barriers and ensure their facilities are accessible to individuals with disabilities. Generally, businesses must provide goods and services to individuals with disabilities in an integrated setting the same as is provided to the general public.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • August 12, 2018
In recent years, particularly with technology making it easier for employees to work remotely, courts have struggled to determine whether onsite attendance is an essential job function under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).
FordHarrison LLP • August 08, 2018
“Drive-by” lawsuits under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) are more prevalent than ever and continue to rise. Title III of the ADA requires businesses to provide goods and services to persons with disabilities on an equal basis as the rest of the general public. The regulations require that businesses remove architectural and communication barriers and provide equal access to persons with disabilities.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • August 01, 2018
Holding that full-time presence at the workplace is not always an essential job function, on July 17, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed summary judgment in favor of the employer in an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) failure to accommodate case. The decision in Hostettler v. College of Wooster1 undermines the deference often afforded to employers in determining whether a particular function is an “essential” job function. Moreover, it appears to eliminate—at least within the Sixth Circuit—the argument that an accommodation permitting an employee to work less than full-time hours in a full-time position is per se unreasonable.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • August 01, 2018
A recent Third Circuit case, Sessoms v. Trs. Of the Univ. of Pa., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 16611 (3rd Cir. June 20, 2018), serves as a reminder that while the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to disabled employees, it does not obligate an employer to provide the accommodation requested by the employee. An employer may choose among reasonable accommodations as long as the chosen accommodation is effective
Ogletree Deakins • July 23, 2018
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) recognizes that an employee or applicant who is currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs (prescription or otherwise) is not a “qualified individual” with a disability. Individuals, however, are protected by the ADA from discrimination on the basis of past drug addiction. A “qualified individual” may be an individual who has successfully completed a supervised drug rehabilitation program or is currently participating in a supervised rehabilitation program and is no longer engaging in illegal drug use. A rehabilitation program may be an in-patient, out-patient, or employee assistance program, or a recognized self-help program.
Ogletree Deakins • July 23, 2018
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that employers reasonably accommodate employees with disabilities, including allowing modified work schedules when appropriate. One federal appellate court has addressed that issue, overlaid with the question of accommodating an employee’s postpartum depression after FMLA leave, and has held that a lower court wrongly concluded that full-time presence was an essential function of the employee’s position. Hostettler v. College of Wooster, 6th Cit., No. 17-3406, July 17, 2018.
Goldberg Segalla LLP • July 16, 2018
Under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), certain employers are required to make a reasonable accommodation to a qualified employee who has a disability. There is a growing trend in the federal courts that requests for an indefinite amount of time off from work due to a disability do not qualify as a reasonable accommodation and that an employer who denies such a request has not violated the ADA.
Goldberg Segalla LLP • July 10, 2018
Businesses expecting claims for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to be "one and done" should exercise caution, as a recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit makes clear. According to the court's ruling, businesses that address, settle, and remediate website accessibility issues to avoid future lawsuits may still face claims — even if the business is in the process of ensuring compliance.
Fisher Phillips • June 24, 2018
A federal appeals court just breathed new life into a disability access lawsuit filed against restaurant chain Hooters, permitting a blind plaintiff who claims he could not access the company’s business website to proceed with his ADA claim—despite the fact that the company was in the midst of fixing its website at the time the lawsuit was filed. The decision from earlier this week should be a wake-up call to all businesses with websites accessible to the public, serving as a reminder to ensure their sites are ADA-compliant (Haynes v. Hooters of America).