The statute of limitation periods in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) give rise to substantive, non-waivable rights rendering a contractually shortened limitation period unenforceable, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has held.
Articles about the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and other issues relating to disability discrimination in the workplace.
On December 9, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found that a former employee did not meet the definition of a “qualified individual” to afford protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) because of her failure to comply with a valid safety requirement for her position.
The Tenth Circuit recently held that a disabled employee was not required to show that she suffered a separate adverse employment action to establish a failure to accommodate claim under the American’s with Disabilities Act (ADA). Exby-Stolley v. Board of County Commissioners. Plaintiff alleged that the employer failed to accommodate
Legislation was introduced in the House of Representatives to try to alleviate the lack of clarity concerning how companies are supposed to make websites accessible to vision impaired individuals. There is currently no law or regulations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) directly addressing technical or legal standards for
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has always been important for employers, and it has become increasingly so as the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic continues to impact workplaces and businesses across the country and globe. A recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit provides additional guidance and contours regarding the ADA— and it reaffirmed the basic principles surrounding the reasonable accommodation process under the Act.
A Pennsylvania district court delivered good news for retailers struggling to balance enforcement of their face mask policies against the rights of customers who assert that their disabilities (or other factors) excuse them from wearing masks.
A federal court in Indiana dismissed an employee’s claim that his employer did not have the right to request a medical examination after he tested positive for drugs and subsequently admitted that he was taking numerous prescription medications that could create a safety risk. Beal v. Muncie Sanitary District, Case
A Washington appellate court upheld a jury’s verdict that an employer’s drug testing protocol requiring direct observation of urine collections did not invade an employee’s privacy and did not constitute a constructive discharge. Ritchey v. Sound Recovery Centers, LLC, No. 53303-1-II (Wash. Ct. App. Oct. 20, 2020).
The employee, a
When it comes to disability and leave management, the past year has been one HR hurricane after another. Everything is different, including our Annual Disability & Leave Management Symposium. We know you are as frustrated as we are. We wanted to have an old fashioned, in-person conference, but in the
A federal court in Tennessee dismissed an employee’s lawsuit in which she claimed that her employer should have changed its drug policy to allow CBD use. Hamric v. City of Murfreesboro, Case No. 3:18-cv-01239 (September 10, 2020).
The City of Murfreesboro hired Hamric as a Cultural Arts Program Specialist in
The EEOC has issued helpful guidance on expectations for employers receiving remote working requests in the future, clarifying that an employer’s temporary shift to a remote environment does not create an obligation to accept future remote working requests.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), proposed scientific and technical guidelines for hair drug testing in federal workplace drug testing programs in the Federal Register on September 10, 2020. The proposed Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs
The Supreme Court of Ohio held that an at-will employee has no cause of action for common law invasion of privacy after the employer required the employee to submit to a directly-observed urine collection drug test. Lunsford v. Sterilite of Ohio, LLC, slip op. No. 2020-Ohio-4193 (August 26, 2020).
It is established that an employee’s drug addiction may qualify as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), provided the employee is not currently using illicit substances. In the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) Technical Assistance Manual on the Employment Provisions (Title I) of the Americans with
Continuing a trend that saw Minnesota courts dismiss at least eight disability access lawsuits under Title III of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 2018 and 2019, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over Minnesota as well as several other states, recently affirmed the dismissals of