On June 20, 2025, the Supreme Court decided Stanley, which we discussed here. There is no need to go into the facts as we have already covered that previously. Accordingly, the blog entry is divided into the categories of: Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion; Justice Gorsuch’s plurality opinion discussing how Title I might apply; Justice Thomas concurring opinion; Justice Sotomayor concurring and dissenting opinion; Justice Jackson dissenting opinion; and thoughts/takeaways. The reader is free to focus on any or all of the categories.
 
I
Justice Gorsuch’s Majority Opinion
 

…
Continue Reading Stanley Decided

This week’s blog entry discusses Justice Thomas with Justice Gorsuch joining concurring opinion in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, here. By now, you most likely know that the opinion for the Court written by Justice Jackson, holds that a higher standard of proof is not in order if you are from a group of people not traditionally considered a member of a majority group and are alleging discrimination. What I want to focus on is the concurring opinion that lays out the case as to why McDonnell Douglas burden shifting approach as a summary judgment tool doesn’t…
Continue Reading The Case for Why McDonnell Douglas as a Summary Judgment Tool Makes No Sense

Within the last week, the Supreme Court has come down with two decisions of relevance to our blog (Osseo Area Schools and Ames). Each is worth a separate blog. This week’s blog entry is going to be the Osseo Area Schools, which I previously blogged on its oral argument here. As usual, the blog entry is divided into categories and they are: Justice Roberts unanimous opinion for the Court; Justice Thomas with Justice Kavanagh joining, concurring opinion; Justice Sotomayor with Justice Jackson joining, concurring opinion; and thoughts/takeaways. Of course, the reader is free to focus on any or all…
Continue Reading Osseo Area Schools Decided

Before getting started on the blog entry of the week, housekeeping matters. Next week I will be traveling most of the week, so do not expect a blog entry from me next workweek. Today’s blog entry is a short one and is a two-for-one. In the first case, the Eighth Circuit issued its en banc opinion in Huber v. Westar Foods, here. In the second case, we look at a United States District Court opinion from Oregon, Cusker v. Oregon Health Authority, here, talking about how ADA still applies even if the underlying issue involves something legal at…
Continue Reading A Two for One: Huber en banc and Magic Mushrooms

I hope everyone had a great Memorial Day weekend.
 
As I have mentioned previously, the last few years have found me increasingly involved in the area of working with counsel representing healthcare professionals who are being forced out of the profession because of their disability. Part of that process includes people being put into the professional recovery programs, often called PHP’s but they can go by other names as well. You can find my blog entry here talking about the potential ADA issues that are involved when a person gets referred into the recovery program, whether it be by…
Continue Reading Employers and PHP’s are Subject to Disability Discrimination Laws

Before getting started on the blog of the week, a housekeeping matter. I usually get my blogs up on Monday and sometimes Tuesday or even Wednesday. However, my daughter just finished her third year of college and is home for a short time before starting her summer gig. So, my schedule for the next couple of weeks will be a bit all over the place as will the day my blog goes up.
 
The blog entry of the day is Strife v. Aldine Independent School District (AISD), here, a published decision from the Fifth Circuit decided on May…
Continue Reading Unreasonable Delay is Actionable, Adverse Action Unnecessary, and More Good Stuff

Today’s blog entry is an update on a prior blog entry we discussed here. In the prior blog entry, we discussed how the police could escape liability when a place of public accommodation did not do the right thing with respect to allowing a service dog in its premises and the police were called. That decision allowed the plaintiff to pursue a motion to default again the business (referred to throughout this blog entry as the defendant). On April 25, 2025, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, decided, here, it would grant the…
Continue Reading Confluence of State and Federal Laws When it Comes to Service Animals

Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in the Osseo Area School District case, transcript here. It was ostensibly about whether a higher standard for damages existed for IDEA claim than for the ADA/Rehabilitation Act claims. It turned out to be something different altogether after both sides agreed that the standard should be the same for all the laws involved. Also, the oral argument revealed that this case potentially has big implications for the world of disability rights writ large. As usual the blog entry is divided into categories, but they are not our usual ones. Instead,…
Continue Reading Osseo Area School District Supreme Court Oral Argument

I hope everyone had a happy Passover and a happy Easter. For those who are Roman Catholic, my condolences on the passing of the Pope.
 
Today’s blog entry concerns §309 of the ADA. It asks the question of whether fundamental alteration applies in §309 cases. The case of the day is Albert v. Association of Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists, LLC, here, a published decision from the 11th Circuit decided on March 14, 2025. It is actually the second time this case came up before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The first time it came up before the…
Continue Reading §309 Contains a Fundamental Alteration Defense

Congratulation to University of Connecticut for a tremendous win yesterday. Their coach now with a record 12 NCAA Division I titles. He already had most number of victories for a coach at the Division I level in basketball. Tonight, is the men’s final with Florida v. Houston.
 
Turning to the blog entry of the day, we look at the case of Nawara v. Cook County, here. The case asked the question whether backpay is an allowable remedy for a violation of the ADA that does not require a plaintiff to have a disability. As usual, the blog entry is…
Continue Reading You Don’t Have to Have a Disability to Get Backpay Under Title I of the ADA