Posts Tagged ‘disabled rights’

“If I notice an employee becoming increasingly unstable, what can I do about it?”

The Americans with Disabilities Act requires employers to accommodate mentally disabled employees, but makes an exception for those who pose a “direct threat” to co-workers or others. Trouble is, to invoke the narrow “direct threat” exception, an employer may need to be prepared to prove that it has based its decision either on “a reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge” or “on the best available objective evidence” — a much tougher evidentiary standard than is required for the making of many other workplace, governmental and medical decisions. [Jon Hyman, Ohio Employer’s Law Blog]

Self-filed suits work for unemployed New Yorker

A 58-year-old New Yorker “has filed more than 60 lawsuits against government agencies, colleges, creditors, companies and anyone else who has rubbed him the wrong way.” His suits charging discrimination, of which he has filed up to thirteen in a day, often allege failure to accommodate various physical ailments. “‘We don’t even bother asking him for his pass. We just let him in,’ one Manhattan station agent said. ‘I can’t understand how he has so much power.'” [New York Post]

Employers and the newly expanded ADA

In the ADA Amendments Act, signed by then-President George W. Bush in 2008 and taking effect the next year, Congress drastically expanded the scope of disabled-rights law, to cover, for example, persons “regarded as” disabled, as well as other formerly uncovered categories. According to one attorney advisor, employers from here out should basically assume everyone in their workforce is going to qualify as “disabled” if push comes to shove: “Challenging the employee’s ‘disability’ status is a waste of time with the new expanded definition of ‘disability’.” [Robin Shea, Employment and Labor Insider]

November 26 roundup

  • Reason TV interviews Richard Epstein;
  • On the SEC’s big new “insider trading” sweep [Ribstein, Bainbridge, Lambert, Salmon, more Ribstein]
  • Losing = winning? Ambitious claim for fees in environmental case [California Civil Justice, scroll]
  • “Unintended consequences department: canceled flights” [Ted at PoL] And check out Ted’s new TSA Abuse Blog, on one of the hottest issues of the moment. More on that from Popehat and Simple Justice;
  • H.R. 1408, the Inclusive Home Design Act, would compel handicap accessibility in private home design, yet another dreadful idea from Rep. Jan Schakowsky of CPSIA fame [AmendTheCPSIA]
  • “This place would be a shoplifter’s paradise (and a liability insurance abuser’s motherlode) in the United States, but we were in Japan, where they don’t seem to worry as much about that kind of thing.” [Mark Frauenfelder, BoingBoing, on the Showa Kan museum of everyday midcentury life in Takayama]
  • UK: “I moved out for decorators and squatters took over my house” [Evening Standard]
  • From the ruins of Pompeii, a reflection on government and disaster relief [Dum Spiro Spero]

“JFK University removes garden over disability concerns”

Pleasant Hill, Calif.: “John F. Kennedy University this week removed a garden that had been at issue in a disabled-access lawsuit, stunning students and instructors who had raised thousands of dollars to fix the problem.” A graduate student had sued over lack of wheelchair access to the garden, which was used by about 60 students a year; the estimated cost of accessibility fixes was $56,000. [San Jose Mercury-News]

EEOC sues on obesity-as-disability theory

Obesity as such has generally not been included as a disability in the past, so the case may signal a newly activist stance at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC press release, AP]

P.S. As commenters point out, “obesity-as-perceived-disability” would be more precise. The law’s recent extension to complainants “perceived as” disabled is proving, just as advocates hoped and defendants feared, to be a major engine of expansion of legal coverage to complainants who in the past could not claim disabled status. More: John Bratt (recalling “Simpsons” episode).

Pizza Hut told to pay $11 million for epileptic driver’s crash

Lawyers “argued that Pizza Hut was responsible for the collision because they hired [deliverer Nicole] Fisk, who had a driver’s license for only three months and had a history of suffering blackout spells and staring episodes.” Pizza Hut countered (unsuccessfully) that Fisk’s epilepsy was diagnosed only after the crash, which seriously injured a mother and daughter in another vehicle. [San Diego Union-Tribune via Lipman, Legal Blog Watch] And yes, it does call to mind the case I wrote about more than a decade ago:

You may think I’m making this up unless I offer a verbatim quote, so here’s exactly what the Washington Post reported in a front-page story on April 8 [1997]: “In January, a former truck driver for Ryder Systems, Inc., won a $ 5.5-million jury verdict after claiming, under the ADA [Americans with Disabilities Act], that Ryder unfairly removed him from his position after he suffered an epileptic seizure, saying his health condition could be a safety hazard. During the time he was blocked from his job at Ryder, the driver was hired by another firm, had a seizure behind the wheel and crashed into a tree. Ryder is appealing the verdict.”