We are wrapping up our discussion of a 6th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that the majority said would bring the circuit into line with the other federal appeals courts. It will not, according to critics. The decision adds another variation to the interpretation of what lawyers refer to as causation language in the Americans with Disabilities Act.
We are continuing our discussion of a 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision. A woman claimed that her former employer fired her at least in part because her medical condition required her to use a wheelchair. A decision like that would have been a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
When the federal circuit courts of appeal disagree on the interpretation of a federal law, a couple of things can happen. At times, the U.S. Supreme Court can settle the matter by hearing a case and rendering a decision. Another possibility is that the circuits can slowly align over time, agreeing one by one that a particular interpretation makes more sense.
A motor carrier company in Indiana, Celadon Trucking Services, Inc., was sued by the EEOC for allegedly requiring applicants to submit to physical examinations, in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"). See EEOC v. Celadon Trucking Services, Inc., Cause No. 1:12-cv-0275-SEB-TAB. The problem, according to the EEOC, is not that Celadon required applicants to undergo a pre-employment physical examination, but that it did so before giving the applicants a conditional offer of employment.
A postal worker was fired from his job for his prolonged period of absence. However, the former employee claims that it was a case of discrimination. The case addresses the definition of disability and return to work agreements.
A three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a decision recently that critics say upholds a precedent of the court while it runs counter to a U.S. Supreme Court decision. The case involves the Americans with Disabilities Act and the right of an employee who becomes disabled to a new position within the company. This is just one of many cases that discuss how far an employer must go to provide a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.
We are continuing our discussion of a recent decision handed down from a three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The decision has reignited a debate between the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the 7th Circuit, which includes Wisconsin -- a debate that involves other circuits and the U.S. Supreme Court. The issue is whether the Americans with Disabilities Act requires an employer to reassign a worker who has become disabled; the reassignment would be considered a reasonable accommodation.
A 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel handed down a decision recently that may continue the court's tougher stance on the Americans with Disabilities Act -- if the full court agrees with the decision. The panel stood by the court's precedent, ruling that the ADA does not require an employer to reassign a worker to a vacant position if a disability renders him incapable of continuing in his current position. The 7th Circuit includes Wisconsin, so this decision is binding here.
The Americans with Disabilities Act has made life a lot easier for many Wisconsin residents. Thanks to this important piece of legislation, employers, landlords and other fixtures of society have to make "reasonable accommodations" for people who have disabilities and are prohibited from discriminating against disabled citizens.
We are continuing our discussion of a recent employment law case. A federal court decided the case in favor of the employee, agreeing that severe obesity qualifies as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission took up the case after the claimant's death.