In a decision otherwise of little note, a federal appeals court has ruled in a case from Georgia that an employee who, because of her medical condition, was called “cripple” and “hopalong” by her supervisor, did not have a claim under the ADA because she was not “disabled” under the pre-amendment ADA.
Yesterday we blogged that the EEOC has filed a number of ADA lawsuits, perhaps signaling the nature of their current agenda.
A federal appeals court has just reversed itself and upheld the EEOC position that an ADA provision relating to “reassignment” requires that employers appoint to a vacant position for which they are qualified those employees who are losing their current positions due to disability.
Title I of the ADA prohibits employment discrimination against “a qualified individual with a disability”.
An employee, not otherwise disabled, is fired because he takes time off to care for a disabled son.
The concepts of “associational discrimination” and “family responsibilities discrimination” have just met in a case arising out of Illinois.
The ADA forbids employers from requiring medical examinations unless they are job-related.
We have written a lot about persons who experience discrimination in employment based either on physical appearance or obesity, and how only one state Michigan and only 6 cities prohibit such discrimination.
Under the ADA, a qualified individual cannot be discriminated against based upon his “disability.”
In our blog entry of March 29, 2011, we wrote about the logical fallacy known as “post hoc ergo propter” believing that “temporal succession” implies a causal relation.