I hope everyone had a fantastic Thanksgiving weekend. Today’s blog entry goes to the dogs literally. The blog entry talks about two different cases involving service animals and how the court system deals with them. My thanks to Prof. Leonard Sandler, clinical law professor at the University of Iowa Law School for sending along the cases. In the first case, Cohen v. Sinnot, from the United States District Court of Colorado decided on November 9, 2023 (unfortunately, I could not figure out a way to link to the decision as it is not in Google scholar yet or on casetext),  a state court disc ..read more

Happy thanksgiving week everyone!!!   Today’s blog entry is the complaint, here, and consent decree, here, in U.S. v. City of Blaine, MN. The case has incredible parallels to what is going on in the world of health care professionals and Physician Health Programs (substance abuse programs such as discussed in this case, physician recovery programs are all very similar), which we discussed here. As usual, the blog entry is divided into categories and they are: key highlights of complaint; key highlights of the consent decree; and thoughts/takeaways. Of course, the reader is free to focus o ..read more

Previously, I have blogged on the inaccessibility of kiosks. Both of those blog entries, here and here, discussed whether the kiosk was a place of public accommodation. The case of the day, Vargas v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, here, is a bit different. In this case, you have a place that operates to draw blood and have their laboratories run the result when a doctor wants testing done. Quest uses a kiosk as part of the check in process. What happens when the kiosk is not accessible so that people with disabilities cannot check in with the same efficiencies as people without disab ..read more

One of the hot areas in title I of the ADA is the question of whether an employer has a mandatory duty of reassignment to a vacant position where the employee is no longer qualified per the ADA for that position. The circuits are split on that, so it is just a matter of time before the United States Supreme Court deals with the issue. The blog entry of the day is EEOC v. Methodist Hospitals of Dallas, a published decision from the Fifth Circuit decided on March 17, 2023, here. As usual, the blog entry is divided into categories and they are: Facts; Barnett framework; interactive process breakd ..read more

At least once a month, I get a phone call where a judge is treating a person with a disability in their courtroom in a hostile way. The person always wants to know what can be done about it and whether judges are allowed to do that. I have talked before going after the judiciary for disability discrimination, such as here, and it isn’t an easy thing to do, see here, though it is possible. This case, Mergl v. Wallace, Mergl v. Wallace-Judge wrongful treatment of pwd attorney (how I named the file),  decided by the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Sep ..read more

Today’s blog entry is not on an issue that I have blogged on previously. It deals with the question of what happens when a person leaves employment and was otherwise qualified during that employment, but after the employment ends, some discriminatory action occurs. Does title I apply since the person is no longer otherwise qualified/qualified? The circuit courts are split on this. This blog entry will discuss how this kind of case could go either way. As usual, the blog entry is divided into categories and they are: plaintiff loses: Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida-facts; plaintiff loses: S ..read more

St. Louis Arch The blog entry for the week is getting posted a bit later than usual because my daughter came home for a short fall break and went back yesterday. Today’s blog entry is a published decision from the Court of Appeals of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, in Martin v. Thi E-Commerce LLC, here. The case discusses the question of whether absent a gateway to a physical place, an Internet site is subject to title III of the ADA. The majority holds that it is not. The dissent argues that it is. The case gives an excellent rundown of the arguments for and against, and I ..read more

Today’s blog entry will discuss the oral argument in Acheson Hotels v. Laufer, which took place on October 4, 2023. We previously mentioned the appellate case here (links to the blog entries therein). The two categories of this blog entry are questions from the Justices and thoughts/takeaways. Of course, the reader is free to focus on either category.   I Questions from the Justices   Justice Thomas and Justice Jackson both wanted to know why the case should be decided by the Supreme Court at all since both parties agree that the case is moot. Justice Sotomayor wanted to know if an ..read more

This week’s blog entry is super short. I am actually traveling all week. The first half of the week is Minneapolis to speak at the Minnesota CLE Bankruptcy Institute. The second half of the week is parents weekend at my daughter’s college. The blog entry for the week is the updated EEOC harassment guideline, which can be found here. As you know, I am not particularly a fan of guidances in general, though there are a few that I like, such as here. In general, I find guidances are not all that informative and are often used as a crutch by attorneys. The updated EEOC harassment guideline, the pub ..read more

Before getting started on the blog entry for the day, I do want to take this opportunity to wish those who celebrated the Jewish new year, a happy new year.   I spent last Friday reading the proposed §504 regulations, which runs a little over three hundred pages, put out by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The regulations have not been updated in decades and this is their update. The proposed regulations can be found here. Comments on the regulations are due November 13, 2023. Due to the way administrative law works, getting the proposed regulation changed means getting i ..read more