An employee who is categorically unable to comply with an employer’s valid workplace safety requirement is not a “qualified” individual under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), even if the safety requirement is not part of the “essential functions” of the employee’s position, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Articles Discussing The "Otherwise Qualified" Requirement Under the ADA.
Fourth Circuit Ruling Finds Employee is not a “Qualified Individual” under ADA when Employee Fails to Comply with Valid Safety Requirement
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.
Your Presence Is Required: Employee Unable to Travel to Job Site Was Not “Qualified” Within the Meaning of the ADA
In recent years, particularly with technology making it easier for employees to work remotely, courts have struggled to determine whether onsite attendance is an essential job function under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).
Medical Progress Needs to Be Assessed in Determining Whether an Individual Is Qualified.
A recently filed federal court case should serve as a reminder to employers that medical advances often make the impossible possible and, as a result, can make the unqualified qualified under ADA. Although the suit asserts a constitutional violation and not a claim under the ADA, the lesson is worth heeding by the conscientious non-governmental employer.
High School Teacher is Determined to not be Disabled After She Accepts Another Teaching Position
Sharon Walker (“Walker”), a high school business teacher, brought suit against the Pulaski County Special School District (“PCSSD”) claiming that she had been discriminated against and retaliated against because of her disability in violation of the American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). PCSSD filed a motion for summary judgment, and on May 1, 2017, it was granted by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
EEOC Finds Hospital’s Leave Policy Unlawful, But Court Dismisses Nurse’s ADA Claims
A federal court in Texas has dismissed a nurse’s disability discrimination and retaliation claims because she failed to establish she was qualified to perform the duties of her position with or without reasonable accommodation even after the EEOC found the employer’s six-month cap on leaves of absence violated the American with Disabilities Act. Salem v. Houston Methodist Hospital, C.A. No. 4:14-1802 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2015).
Legal Alert: Deaf Lifeguard’s Disability Claims Against Oakland County Go to Jury
Executive Summary: The Sixth Circuit has reversed the decision of a lower court and held that a deaf individual should be permitted to proceed to trial on his claim that a prospective employer discriminated against him on the basis of disability by failing to hire him as a lifeguard. Keith v. County of Oakland, (6th Cir. Jan. 10, 2013). In reviving the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claim, the Court found that a jury should be permitted to determine whether the individual was otherwise qualified to be a lifeguard, with or without accommodation, that is, whether hearing is an essential function of the job and, if so, whether reasonable accommodations could have been made.