Ogletree Deakins • September 22, 2017
Today’s employers must run their businesses within the competitive environment in which they operate while affording employees an ever-increasing array of leaves. Yet, running a business without a full complement of employees is difficult.
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 Phillips v. Victor Community Support Services, Inc., No. 15-15862, Unpublished (July 3, 2017).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.
Carothers DiSante & Freudenberger LLP • September 07, 2017
This morning, the Trump administration announced the end of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”), the Obama Administration’s immigration program designed to shield undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children from deportation. DACA gave roughly 800,000 people an Employment Authorization Document (a/k/a EAD card) or the right to work in the United States.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • September 04, 2017
Make no mistake about it: ADA compliance can be challenging. This is especially true when it comes to providing reasonable accommodation. Not uncommonly, managers wanting to do the right thing actually provide more than the law requires. Although well-intentioned, this practice often leads to conflict if more generous accommodations are later scaled back. Thankfully, a recent decision by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals supports the notion that employers should not be penalized for going beyond their legal obligations.
Nexsen Pruet • August 30, 2017
An employer has agreed to pay 2M to resolve a disability discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), according to the EEOC and court records.
Nexsen Pruet • August 30, 2017
In what could prove to be a mixed bag for employers, the Department of Justice (DOJ) officially has shelved once-planned website accessibility regulations under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The decision should put to rest—for now—speculation that the Trump-era DOJ will enforce Title III’s provisions against companies whose websites are not accessible by screen-reader technology.
FordHarrison LLP • August 24, 2017
Executive Summary: Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in McNelis v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Company affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the employer in a lawsuit alleging disability discrimination under the Americans with Disability Act (ADA), finding the employer properly terminated a security guard at a nuclear plant after he was declared “unfit for duty” pursuant to Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations and lost his security clearance.
XpertHR • August 17, 2017
United Parcel Service (UPS) has agreed to pay $2 million to resolve a nationwide disability discrimination lawsuit filed in 2009 by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The suit alleged that the shipping company's inflexible leave policies resulted in the job loss of disabled employees who needed reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Goldberg Segalla LLP • August 14, 2017
Marijuana laws are evolving in the US. Marijuana is a Schedule 1 drug under the Controlled Substances Act, and has no accepted medical use under federal law.