ADA’s Direct Threat Defense

Details

Created on Sunday, 01 July 2001 12:10

Click here to download a pdf copy of this article

Echazabal v. Chevron USA, Inc.: Conquering the Final Frontier of Paternalistic Employment Practices

I.    Introduction

            For over eighty years the federal government has taken increasingly aggressive steps to support the disabled by providing rehabilitative services and enacting legislation to reduce discriminatory practices.[1] While significant progress has been made, a series of federal appellate decisions have set back these advancements by finding that the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)[2] permits employers to exclude otherwise qualified disabled individuals from positions solely because placement in the job would pose a risk to their own health or safety.[3] Some courts have gone even further by placing the burden on the disabled to prove that such safety concerns do not make them unqualified for the position they seek.[4] A recent case, Echazabal v. Chevron, USA, Inc., handed down by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit signaled a giant step toward reversing this trend by requiring employers to ignore self-risk concerns and permit the disabled to judge for themselves the relative risks of an employment opportunity without outside interference.

Disabled Employees Eligible for Reasonable Accommodation Under Connecticut Law

Details

Created on Tuesday, 01 July 2008 12:18

Click here to download a pdf copy of this article

            The Connecticut Supreme Court recently ruled that the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (“CFEPA”) requires employers to provide reasonable accommodation to disabled employees. Curry v. Allan S. Goodman, Inc., 286 Conn. 390 (2008). While reasonable accommodation has always been required under the federal ADA, this recent ruling now imposes similar requirements on employers with as few as three employees. Also, a greater number of employees will now be eligible for reasonable accommodation as CFEPA’s definition of “disabled” is broader than the ADA’s.

Employee Medical Examinations

Details

Created on Tuesday, 21 March 2006 12:18

Click here to download a pdf copy of this article

            According to the EEOC’s guidance on Disability Related Inquires and Medical Examinations of Employees Under the ADA, an employer may require current employees to undergo medical examinations if they are “job related” and “consistent with business necessity.” Blood and urine tests to determine the current use of illegal drugs fall outside the definition of “medical exams” and are permissible under the ADA, subject to any state reasonable suspicion requirements, or other legal restrictions.

Employee Medical Exams Only Permitted After Other Job Offer Contingencies Satisfied

Details

Created on Saturday, 01 October 2005 12:18

Click here to download a pdf copy of this article

            The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that employers must strictly follow all procedural aspects of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) to avoid liability. Leonel v. American Airlines, Inc., 400 F.3d 702 (9^th Cir. 2005). Specifically, the court held that an employer’s hiring process may violate the ADA and related state statutes if it does not exactly follow the ADA-prescribed sequence.