Is additional time off after a leave of absence a “reasonable” accommodation? The answer is unclear, and usually is “It depends.” Federal courts recently have disagreed with each other on the issue, and the question has received continued and increasing attention after the EEOC’s 2016 Guidance on medical leaves under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires both a disabled employee and her employer to work interactively to identify reasonable accommodations for the disabled employee. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has underscored that requirement by dismissing the claims of an individual who, it found, failed to engage fully in the interactive process.
Most employers recognize the fact that in addition to federal anti-discrimination laws, state and local laws – which often are more expansive – must be taken into account when making disciplinary and termination decisions related to protected individuals.
In a case decided under New York state laws, that state’s highest court reversed summary judgment for
In an unpublished opinion issued on October 8, 2013, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld summary judgment in favor of an employer on a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The interesting – and somewhat unexpected – basis of the decision was the fact that the plaintiff/employee’s termination was based
The 4th U.S. Court of Appeals has dismissed an employee’s lawsuit, holding that the individual’s inability to work overtime hours was not a substantial limitation that would entitle him to the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Boitnott v. Corning Incorporated, 4th Cir., No. 10-1769, February 10, 2012.
Michael Boitnott, an employee of
In an issue of first impression for the court, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the dismissal of an individual’s claim under the “associational discrimination” provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Stansberry v. Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp., 6th Cir., No. 09-2499, July 6, 2011. In that case, an employee claimed that
