Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLP • April 17, 2014
The case, which I wrote about way back in 2011, is a cautionary tale for employers who are trying to deal with employees who break the rules because of their disabilities.
Fisher & Phillips LLP • April 16, 2014
Employers must understand their accommodation obligations. Denying an accommodation request because the employee is not disabled is a risky proposition.
ManpowerGroup • April 08, 2014
Based on our recent surveys, lots and lots (and lots) of employers still have trouble understanding the Americans with Disabilities Act.
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.
Nexsen Pruet • March 10, 2014
Many employers require that applicants pass a pre-employment medical exam to ensure they are physically capable of doing the job. Employers should be aware that pre-employment medical exams, while not categorically barred, could violate several federal statutes and draw unwanted attention from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or the Commission).
Ogletree Deakins • March 03, 2014
Earlier this month, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a motion to dismiss a claim filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of a class of individuals challenging United Parcel Service, Inc.’s leave policy. The EEOC claimed that the challenged policy, under which employees will be “administratively separated” from employment after 12 months of medical leave, violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). EEOC v. United Parcel Service, Inc., No. 09C5291 (February 11, 2014).
Franczek Radelet P.C • February 26, 2014
No matter what position the EEOC might take, I'll always take the position that an employee's regular, reliable attendance is an essential function of the job. So, when an employee wants to arrive at work at any time, without any repercussions, it's not a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. And I have a recent court case to prove it.
Ogletree Deakins • February 18, 2014
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a motion filed by United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) to dismiss a claim by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of a class of individuals challenging the company’s leave policy. The challenged policy requires that employees “be administratively separated” from employment after 12 months of medical leave. EEOC v. United Parcel Service, Inc., N.D. Ill., No. 09C5291, February 11, 2014.
Nexsen Pruet • February 18, 2014
Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) over five years ago on Sept.17, 2008. The act’s stated purpose was to reinstate “a broad scope of protection to be available under the ADA” as the result of several decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court that had created an “inappropriately high level of limitation necessary to obtain coverage under the ADA.”
Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLP • January 30, 2014
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has come out with a decision interpreting the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act that pretty much confirms all of our worst fears about the scope of that new law.