Total Articles: 13
Phelps Dunbar LLP • March 07, 2018
The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) requires employers to engage in an interactive process with employees to reasonably accommodate a disability. A federal court in Ohio has highlighted, through a dismissal of a lawsuit filed by an employee who used opioids in the workplace, the fact that the duty to engage in the process applies equally to employees as well. Sloan v. Repacorp, Inc., 3:16-cv-00161 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 27, 2018).
Jackson Lewis P.C. • March 02, 2018
An employee who refused to stop using morphine and would not engage in the interactive process with his employer could not survive summary judgment on his disability discrimination and retaliation claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Sloan v. Repacorp, Inc., 3:16-cv-00161 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 27, 2018).
Ogletree Deakins • September 20, 2017
“Once an employer becomes aware of the need for accommodation, that employer has a mandatory obligation under the ADA to engage in an interactive process with the employee to identify and implement appropriate reasonable accommodations.” Nonetheless, in a recent opinion, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals clarified that the interactive process requires direct communication on both sides, between the employer and employee, to explore in good faith the possible accommodations. Phillips v. Victor Community Support Services, Inc., No. 15-15862, Unpublished (July 3, 2017).
Jackson Lewis P.C. • September 20, 2017
Diligent and well informed employers know that it is the best practice to engage in an individualized assessment of a requested accommodation. Sometimes an employer may be tempted to refuse to discuss an accommodation because it doesn’t believe that the request is reasonable or because the employee is not “qualified.” It should resist the temptation.
Ogletree Deakins • May 16, 2017
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires both a disabled employee and her employer to work interactively to identify reasonable accommodations for the disabled employee. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has underscored that requirement by dismissing the claims of an individual who, it found, failed to engage fully in the interactive process. Brown v. Milwaukee Board of School Directors, No. 16-1971, 7th Circuit, May 4, 2017.
Ogletree Deakins • May 10, 2016
To support a failure-to-accommodate claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a plaintiff must establish both a prima facie case of discrimination and an employer’s failure to accommodate it.
Ogletree Deakins • August 31, 2015
Dealing with issues related to accommodation requests at work can be a daunting task—even for the most seasoned HR or legal professional. The path to a successful interactive process and a meaningful analysis of an accommodation request is fraught with landmines at every turn. Though professionals are required to use judgment and perform an individualized assessment for each new accommodation request, there are some protocols employers can use as a guideline each time the need arises.
Ogletree Deakins • January 19, 2015
A diabetic employee who quit her job in response to her employer’s rejection of her suggested “reasonable accommodation” cannot support claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), according to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, because she failed to participate in the interactive process in good faith. EEOC v. Kohl’s Dep’t Stores, Inc., No. 14-1268 (December 19, 2014).
Ogletree Deakins • January 05, 2015
A diabetic employee who quit her job in response to the employer’s rejection of her suggested “reasonable accommodation” cannot support claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), because she failed to participate in the interactive process in good faith, according to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. EEOC v. Kohl’s Dep’t Stores, Inc., 1st Cir., No. 14-1268, December 19 2014.
Ogletree Deakins • April 08, 2014
A recent ruling by the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico clarifies that Law 44, Puerto Rico’s counterpart to the federal American with Disabilities Act (ADA), applies only to employers and does not provide for individual liability. Accordingly, claims brought against individual defendants under Law 44 are subject to dismissal.
Fisher Phillips • November 12, 2013
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) poses ongoing compliance challenges and attracts significant attention from plaintiffs' lawyers and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The resulting litigation continues to illustrate that inflexible policies and practices are a recipe for disaster.
Franczek Radelet P.C • October 02, 2013
In a case recently decided under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)—Suvada v. Gordon Flesch Company, Inc.—a federal district court in Chicago allowed a production clerk’s claim for constructive discharge against her former employer, an office-services company, to proceed to trial.
Ogletree Deakins • December 13, 2010
A medical resident with Asperger’s Disorder was unable to meet his burden, in his ADA lawsuit against his hospital employer, that he was “otherwise qualified” for his position. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld summary judgment in favor of the hospital, because the resident’s requested accommodation - that the hospital physician and staff be educated on the symptoms and triggers of Asperger’s - did not address the key obstacle preventing him from performing a necessary function of his job, or resolve his inability to fulfill his responsibilities as a hospital resident.