Search

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]

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 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 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.