On May 26, 2020, a woman with an alleged respiratory disability filed suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) against a supermarket chain in Pennsylvania after she was denied entry because she could not wear a face mask. This lawsuit marks a growing trend of disability access lawsuits challenging
Articles Discussing General Topics Under the ADA
All employers should care about their employees’ mental health – but when does this concern put an employer in territory that may violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)? In López-López v. The Robinson School, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that an employer’s driving
On April 19, 2020, Judge James V. Selna of the United States District Court, Central District of California, granted a motion to declare pro se plaintiff Peter Strojnik, Sr. a vexatious litigant, requiring him to obtain the permission of the Court before filing any future accessibility lawsuits with the District
On Friday, April 23, 2020, Judge Gregory Woods of the Southern District of New York issued a first of its kind decision rejecting the argument that ADA Title III requires business that offer gift cards to also offer them in Braille. Dominguez v. Banana Republic, LLC, 1:19-cv-10171-GHW (S.D.N.Y. April 23,
The Seventh Circuit joins the Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Circuits in holding that such a refusal would not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. In Shell v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company, No. 19-1030, the appellate court addressed the certified question “whether the ADA’s regarded-as provision encompasses conduct motivated by the likelihood that an employee will develop a future disability within the scope of the ADA.”
“What did I do wrong?” and “Am I doing this correctly” are frequent questions from clients regarding FMLA administration. This is the 24th blog in this series, which digs into the FMLA regulations to address discrete mis-steps that can result in legal liability.
While we continue to wait for guidance from the government on website accessibility standards, plaintiffs continue to challenge the accessibility of company websites. For years, individuals have brought lawsuits claiming that their access to goods and services is limited under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities (“ADA”). More recently we have seen individuals challenge their access to employment under Title I of the ADA due to online application processes that they claim are not accessible.
It is not uncommon for employees who are on leave and receiving workers’ compensation benefits to be released to return to work with light duty restrictions. To account for these situations, some employers have designated light duty positions reserved for employees who are released to return to work on light duty after an occupational injury.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act does not permit non-employees to bring claims under a disparate impact theory, the Seventh Circuit has ruled. Kleber v. CareFusion Corp. (7th Cir. Jan. 23, 2019). Accordingly, in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, job applicants will not be able to challenge hiring decisions that are neutral, but which disproportionately exclude job applicants over 40.
In a recent 2-1 decision, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected its prior precedent,1 joining the Fourth,2 Sixth,3 and Seventh4 Circuits in adopting a “but-for” causation standard in disability discrimination cases brought under the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973.5 In doing so, the Second Circuit explicitly noted that, with respect to employment discrimination claims, the Rehabilitation Act incorporates the same causation standard as appropriate under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and amendments thereto (ADA).6
Dear Littler: I just learned that one of our employees has the measles. He works on a floor with 20 coworkers in an open office seating arrangement. Can I tell the other employees why he’s out so they can get tested or monitor their own health? Can I require them to receive the measles vaccine?
Thousands of employers have received demand letters claiming their websites and apps are places of public accommodation covered by Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and that their websites are not accessible to individuals with disabilities. What is all of this about?
If you’re like most folks, you’ve been wondering “when am I going to see a story mentioning both flesh eating bacteria and reasonable accommodation.”
The civil penalties assessed for violations of several labor statutes have increased, according to the United States Department of Labor (DOL). The increases became effective January 23, 2019 and are consistent with the DOL’s obligations under the Inflation Adjustment Act, which requires an annual adjustment to the civil money penalty levels for inflation by January 15 each year.
Executive Summary: Many business owners have faced litigation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by disabled individuals who claim the businesses’ websites are inaccessible. Now, many plaintiffs are turning their attention to municipalities and their websites.