A warehouse worker failed a vision test because he was blind in one eye. He lost his ADA suit because his employer did not think that he was “substantially limited” in his “ability to see” and because the test was reasonable.
A concrete truck drive suffered nerve damage that impacted his ability to walk, work, etc. The Eighth Circuit found that his only major life activity impacted by his disability was procreation. As an accommodation, the driver requested a non-ready-mix truck job. Since this accommodation had nothing to do with procreation, he was not entitled to the accommodation under the ADA.
An employee requested no forced overtime because of his depression. The employer prohibited all overtime for six months. No ADA violation because the employee did not complain that this accommodation was inadequate.
A diabetic warehouse supervisor needed breaks to monitor and treat his condition. The employer would not allow such breaks and argued the case should be dismissed since there was no adverse employment action. The Court disagreed, finding that the ADA does not require that an alleged failure to accommodate result in an adverse employment action.
The First Circuit found that “getting along with others” is not a major life activity. However, the Second Circuit finds that employees have ADA rights if they have trouble initiating contact and responding at the most basic level.
A driver lost his driver’s license for six months after receiving a defibrillator. He argued that the employer failed to accommodate him when it perceived him as disabled. Noting a split in the Circuits on the issue, a District Court in Maine sided with the driver.
HRTrain provides online training about workplace issues. (www.HRTrain.com). HRTrainís employment law team of Robert D. Lipman, Esq., Allison Plesur, Esq., and David A. Robins, Esq., are members of the New York employment law firm, Lipman & Plesur, LLP.
Win or lose, employees are required to split the cost of arbitration under an arbitration agreement. The Eleventh Circuit found the agreement unenforceable because it violates Title VII’s fee shifting when plaintiff prevails.
Employers often ask trial courts to dismiss cases which don’t have enough ammo to get to a jury. The U.S. Supreme Court now says cases may not be dismissed simply because they don’t present direct evidence of discrimination.