Franczek Radelet P.C • May 24, 2016
Earlier this month, the EEOC issued a technical assistance resource on leave as an ADA reasonable accommodation under the ADA. I am delighted that EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum will join me for a webinar to take a deep dive into the information provided in the EEOC’s resource and apply the technical assistance to a variety of real-life scenarios.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • May 19, 2016
A South Carolina company that hauls gasoline, diesel fuel and ethanol throughout the country will face an Americans with Disabilities Act suit brought by a rejected DOT driver applicant with a sleep disorder for which he was prescribed an amphetamine (Dexedrine), the U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond has decided, reversing a lower’s court’s dismissal of John Lisotto’s lawsuit. Lisotto v. New Prime, Inc., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 8011 (4th Cir., No. 15-1273, decided May 3, 2016) (not officially reported).
Jackson Lewis P.C. • May 19, 2016
Since June 2011, when the EEOC suggested it might issue guidance on leave as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA, we have likened the wait to waiting for Godot. See here and here. After nearly five years of reciting that “it didn’t come today, it might come tomorrow,” on May 9, 2016, the EEOC issued a “resource document” on leave and the ADA. Unlike in Beckett’s play, Godot arrived.
Responding to an all-time high rate of disability charges filed in fiscal year 2015, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has issued a new publication reiterating an employer's obligation, under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), to provide leave as a reasonable accommodation to employees with disabilities.
Ogletree Deakins • May 15, 2016
On May 9, 2016, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released a resource document titled, “Employer-Provided Leave and the Americans with Disabilities Act,” which offers insights into when employers should provide leave as an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). As a refresher, the ADA requires covered employers to provide reasonable accommodations to applicants and employees with disabilities who require such accommodations due to their disabilities. Under the ADA, employers would not be obligated to provide a “reasonable accommodation” if it would cause “undue hardship” to the employer.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • May 11, 2016
On May 9, 2016, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a resource document addressing the rights of employees with disabilities who seek leave as a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). This document consolidates existing guidance by the EEOC on the ADA and leaves of absences regarding, among other things, leave as a reasonable accommodation, including the interactive process and policies on leave, reinstatement and reassignment.
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.
Franczek Radelet P.C • May 10, 2016
For years, employers across America have been clamoring for guidance from the EEOC about how they should manage an employee’s request for extended or intermittent leave from work and how much leave is considered as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. This week, employers received an answer.
Ogletree Deakins • April 25, 2016
Obesity does not meet the definition of a “disability” under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for either the discrimination or “regarded as” provisions of the statute, a panel of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held, unless it is also a “physical impairment,” which means that it must be a “physiological disorder or condition . . . affecting one or more major body systems.” As a result, in Morriss v. BNSF Railway Co., the Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the railroad.
Nexsen Pruet • April 14, 2016
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became law over 20 years ago. But until last month, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes North and South Carolina, had never specified a plaintiff’s burden of proving a claim for discrimination under the act. Indeed, lower courts are split over whether a plaintiff must show that his or her disability was a “motivating factor” in the employment decision at issue or that “but for” the disability, the personnel action would not have occurred. In a recent case, however, the Fourth Circuit determined that a plaintiff must meet the more demanding standard and show that “but for” the disability, the employer would not have taken action. Gentry v. East West Partners Management Co., Inc., et al., No. 14-2382, 2016 WL 851673 (4th Cir. 2016).