Search

The Americans with Disabilities Act was enacted in 1990, and U.S. Department of Justice regulations went into effect in 1992. Since then, there has been one substantive amendment to the statute, the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments of 2008 and a few new DOJ regulations. The Rehabilitation Act is even older, having been enacted in 1973. Section 504 regulations were initially promulgated in 1977. Most amendments to the Rehabilitation Act date back to the 1980s. So now might be the time to look at the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act to determine what amendments, if any, would help ensure students and employees with disabilities have meaningful access to postsecondary educational institutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Americans with Disabilities Act was enacted in 1990, and U.S. Department of Justice regulations went into effect in 1992. Since then, there has been one substantive amendment to the statute, the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments of 2008 and a few new DOJ regulations. The Rehabilitation Act is even older, having been enacted in 1973. Section 504 regulations were initially promulgated in 1977. Most amendments to the Rehabilitation Act date back to the 1980s. So now might be the time to look at the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act to determine what amendments, if any, would help ensure that students and employees with disabilities have meaningful access to postsecondary educational institutions. Here are my suggestions: [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Last week, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued new guidance explaining nondiscrimination and reasonable accommodation provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that apply to people "not engaged in the current illegal use of drugs" who are qualified for employment. The documents, "Use of Codeine, Oxycodone, and Other Opioids: Information for Employees" and "How Health Care Providers Can Help Current and Former Patients Who Have Used Opioids Stay Employed," underscore the rights of people who are using opioids, are addicted to opioids or were addicted to opioids in the past but are not currently using drugs illegally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Case name: Watson v. Shenandoah University, No. 17–1588 (4th Cir. 10/26/17). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Case name: Snowden v. The Trustees of Columbia University, No. 14-1362-cv (2d Cir. 04/16/15). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Brien Hill wore a prosthesis on his left leg because it had been amputated below the knee. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the proposed regulations of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs in the U.S. in 2012. According to lawyer Megan Norris, the regulations would demand that federal contractors ask all job applicants to voluntarily self-identify as a person with a disability. Norris adds that regulations would integrate the new definition of "disability" that was made by the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008. INSET: University official weighs in on proposed regs.

The article describes a court case which demonstrates that colleges and universities must grant reasonable accommodations to their employees with disabilities. An employee from the Louisiana State University filed a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act against the university for failing to accommodate her macular degeneration and terminating her employment. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the employee's claim, which, according to the article, shows that institutions must follow up their employees' claim for accommodations.

The article discusses the New York court case Seivright v. Montefiore Medical Center, Hospital of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in which it was ruled that a failure-to-accommodate discrimination claim requires expert testimony about what kind of accommodation would have been successful. Topics covered include plaintiff Hyacinth Seivright's permanent injuries suffered at work, refusal to take any job with a lower pay, and claims of Americans With Disabilities Act violations.

The article discusses the proposed conditions from the U.S. Department of Defense on determining whether an impairment limits the major life activities of students. These conditions of limitations include the inability to perform a task compared to the general population, compliance of public entities, and inability to meet eligibility requirements for a program. Among the laws governing these conditions include the Equal Employment Opportunity Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The article focuses on community integration for people with disabilities. The "Community Integration for People With Disabilities: Key Principles" document by the Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law was unveiled on July 29, 2013 to celebrate the American With Disabilities Act's (ADA) 23rd anniversary. Excerpts from the document are discussed including the right to choose their living situations, employment in non-segregated, regular workplaces and government funding.

The article discusses a court case wherein the plaintiffs filed an appeal against the District Court's ruling on their claims under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. The District Court dismissed the case, having found that the plaintiffs did not allege how smaller classes will allow them to continue teaching. The First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision as the plaintiffs were not required to plead facts on the likelihood of success on the merits.

The article discusses a court case wherein the plaintiff appealed against the District Court's earlier judgment regarding her case of wrongful termination. The Sixth U. S. Court of Appeals upheld the District Court's ruling favoring the defendant. It also affirmed that plaintiffs filing cases for wrongful termination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) should be able to prove that disability was the sole reason for the employer's decision to terminate.

The article discusses a court case wherein the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a school district in a case filed by a case manager who claimed she was not accommodated under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The court learned that her impairments were temporary which is not covered under ADA rules. It ruled that the district was not obligated to provide work accommodations. The court though recommended a six-month reduced work schedule for her.

The article discusses a court case where the U.S. District Court ruled that a graduate assistant's employment claims could not be brought under Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). The case of Brettler v. Pursue University indicates that Title II does not apply to employment claims because it refers to discrimination in a state entity's provision of services, programs or activities. The facts of the case are presented.

The article discusses a court case wherein a graduate assistant filed employment claims against Purdue University. The U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana investigated the case and granted summary judgment for the university, ruling that employment claims are not within the purview of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The graduate assistant alleged that the university failed to accommodate his disability resulting to the termination of his assistantship.