It’s time to get back to the grind after the holiday season. I hope everyone had a great holiday season. Today’s blog entry deals with the implications of what happens when a reasonable accommodation request of a plaintiff is facially unreasonable. What does that mean for a plaintiff’s reasonable accommodation claim? What might that mean for a plaintiff’s claim that the employer failed to engage in the interactive process? The case of the day is Bowles v. SSRG II, LLC, dba Chicken Salad Chick, a published decision decided by the Sixth Circuit on December 17, 2025, here. As usual, the blog
Continue Reading Does an Employer Have the Ability to Not Engage in the Interactive Process if the Reasonable Accommodation Request is Facially Unreasonable and Other Stuff
Latest from Understanding the ADA
Inflexible Return to Work Policies: Granas Update
Welcome to the new year everyone. This week’s blog entry is an update on Granas v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, which we blogged on here. Subsequent to that blog entry, Union Pacific moved for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial. The court, here, was having none of it. Since we blogged on the case previously, we don’t need to explore the facts. So, the categories for this blog entry are: when can a jury verdict be overturned by a post-trial motion; when can a bench trial decision be overturned by a post-trial motion; the jury
Continue Reading Inflexible Return to Work Policies: Granas Update
2025 Understanding the ADA Greatest Hits
As promised below is the greatest hits for the Understanding the ADA blog for 2025. Some of the entries that appear in the greatest hits section were not the greatest hits of 2025, but are so important that I keep them in there any way. Here goes the list for 2025 in reverse order of popularity:
A One Page Per Curiam From Supreme Court that can be Huge and the ADA 30 Days to Comply Act
I did not anticipate doing another blog entry until the week of Christmas. However, my daughter’s flight into Atlanta is delayed, and so I have some time. I actually relax by writing (weird I know), and this blog entry is extremely short. So why not? My next blog entry will be the greatest hits of 2025, that I will put up Christmas week.
The blog entry is a two-for-one. First, a per curiam decision from the United States Supreme Court in Doe v. Dynamic Physical Therapy, LLC, has the potential to be incredibly significant. That decision can be found
Continue Reading A One Page Per Curiam From Supreme Court that can be Huge and the ADA 30 Days to Comply Act
EEOC v. William Beaumont Hospital Redux
This week’s blog entry will be the last substantive blog entry of the calendar year. As mentioned previously, I will put up the greatest hits of 2025 for the Understanding the ADA blog the week of Christmas. Turning to the blog entry for the week, on November 19, 2025, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied William Beaumont Hospital’s motion to reconsider, which can be found here. We have blogged previously the court’s decision on the summary judgment motions, here. There is no need to go into the facts as we have previously blogged
Continue Reading EEOC v. William Beaumont Hospital Redux
Are Retaliation and Interference Claims Viable under the Rehabilitation Act in Employment Matters? The Sixth Circuit Says No
Before getting started on the blog entry of the week, a housekeeping matter, I am thinking that there may be one additional substantive blog for the rest of the year before I do the 2025 greatest hits. My thinking is that one more substantive blog entry after this will appear the week of December 8. Over Christmas week, I will put up the 2025 greatest hits. After that, my plan is to pick up blogging again after the new year. Turning to the blog entry of the week, did you know when it comes to employment matters, that §504 of the
Continue Reading Are Retaliation and Interference Claims Viable under the Rehabilitation Act in Employment Matters? The Sixth Circuit Says No
ADA and 504 as an Alternative to §1983 in Excessive Force Cases
When the Federal Bar Association national convention was held in Kansas City Missouri, I was part of a panel that explored outside the box uses of the ADA. One of the panelist, Jamie Strawbridge, talked about how the ADA/504 can be an alterative to excessive force §1983 cases. The case of the week explores exactly that. The case of the day is the estate of Ryan Leroux v. Montgomery County, here, decided on October 24, 2025, in the United States District Court for Maryland, Southern Division. This is an excessive force case which was pursued as an ADA/504 claim instead
Continue Reading ADA and 504 as an Alternative to §1983 in Excessive Force Cases
Have no Idea as to Why Defense Side Attorneys Keep Defending on the Grounds that an ADA Disability Does Not Exist
After the amendments to the ADA, it doesn’t make any sense for an attorney to defend on the grounds that a disability doesn’t exist, with a notable exception being where the major life activity of working is involved. It should be a rare situation where plaintiff alleges the major life activity of working considering all of the other options available to a plaintiff after the amendments. Our case of the day illustrates how defending on the ground that an ADA disability doesn’t exist is very much an uphill climb. The case is Edwards v. Shelby County, Tennessee decided by the
Continue Reading Have no Idea as to Why Defense Side Attorneys Keep Defending on the Grounds that an ADA Disability Does Not Exist
In Architectural Barrier Litigation, Plaintiff’s Motivation Doesn’t Matter if Plaintiff Has Transacted Business
I am very regular about posting blog entries for the week. I have rarely missed doing that over the 14 years I have been doing this. I do have a good explanation for missing last week. My father died a week ago today, and I was away for funeral events. By any objective measure he lived a very full and long life. He definitely would not have wanted me to not leave blogging alone for a considerable length of time, because I enjoy doing it so much. So, we are back on track this week.
The blog entry for
Continue Reading In Architectural Barrier Litigation, Plaintiff’s Motivation Doesn’t Matter if Plaintiff Has Transacted Business
Let’s Count the Ways Alcoholism is a Disability
There is a lot of confusion out there about whether alcoholism is a disability. Illegal use of drugs gets exempted from the ADA but alcoholism is a different story. True, you can evaluate a person engaged in excessive use of alcohol in terms of performance as if the alcohol use doesn’t exist, but that is an entirely different matter from whether it is a disability. The case of the day explores how alcoholism is an ADA disability in several different ways. It also illustrates how state law and federal law on disability discrimination don’t always match up. The case is
Continue Reading Let’s Count the Ways Alcoholism is a Disability
Eighth Amendment, Title II, and Nondelegable Duty
Today’s blog entry is a published decision from the Third Circuit, Montanez v. Price, here decided on October 8, 2025 (which was my birthday). It discusses a series of issues, including: the Eighth Amendment; what is a program, service, and/or activity; and nondelegable duty. More specifically, the blog entry is divided into the following categories and they are: facts; Eighth Amendment overview/conclusions; who can be sued for the disability law claims; programs, services, and activities were involved; ADA/504 are nondelegable duties; and thoughts/takeaways. Of course, the reader is free to focus on any or all of the categories.
Facts
Continue Reading Eighth Amendment, Title II, and Nondelegable Duty
Direct Evidence Cases Do Exist and Other Good Stuff
Today’s blog entry comes out of the Eighth Circuit, where just don’t see a lot of ADA cases. This case, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Drivers Management, LLC, is a published decision decided on July 10, 2025, and can be found here. The case explores several topics including: 1) direct evidence; 2) logistical undue hardship; 3) undue hardship as an affirmative defense; 4) direct threat as an affirmative defense; 5) stray remarks; 6) essential functions of the job; 7) punitive damages; 8) injunctive relief; and 9) prejudgment interest. As usual, blog is divided into categories and they are: facts;
Continue Reading Direct Evidence Cases Do Exist and Other Good Stuff
Religious Freedom and Remote Work ADA Implications and the Latest With HUD and Animals in Housing
Today’s blog entry is a two for one. First, we explore some stunning developments in the area of housing and animals when it comes to persons with disabilities. Second, we explore a memorandum opinion from DOJ to the acting chair of the EEOC when it comes to remote work as an accommodation for religious liberty purposes. As usual, blog entry is divided in the categories and they are: HUD withdrawal of the circulars involving ESA and SA’s; memorandum opinion pretty acting chair of the EEOC; and thought/takeaways. Of course, the reader is free to focus on any or all of
Continue Reading Religious Freedom and Remote Work ADA Implications and the Latest With HUD and Animals in Housing
Inflexible Return to Work Policies Can Cost You Big Time
Before getting started on the blog entry for the week, I want to wish those who are celebrating a happy and healthy Jewish new year. The new year starts this evening and culminates with the day of atonement next week.
The case of the week is Granas v. Union Pacific Railroad Company out of United States District Court for Oregon, here. It discusses what happens when an employer has an inflexible return to work rule, and imposes permanent restrictions without engaging in an individualized analysis. The result is an award of $$952,863 in front as well as back pay
Continue Reading Inflexible Return to Work Policies Can Cost You Big Time
How Not to do the Interactive Process
I am back in the office after taking an Alaskan cruise with a side trip to Denali National Park. Both are absolute bucket lists. If you have not done both, I highly recommend it. The scenery in Alaska is something that cannot be easily explained. If you have only done the cruise, definitely worth going back to Alaska in order to take in Denali National Park.
Turning to the blog entry of the day, it is about a case illustrating how not to do the interactive process. The case of the day is Powers v. Town of Durham, New
Continue Reading How Not to do the Interactive Process
Unions Can’t Hide Behind the Duty of Fair Representation When it Comes to ADA and Title VII Compliance
Before getting started on the blog entry of the week, a housekeeping matter in order. I will be out of the office August 30-September 12, so this will be my last blog entry until the week of September 15.
This week’s blog entry raises the question of whether unions can hide behind the duty of fair representation in order to avoid the more burdensome requirements of complying with the ADA and Title VII. In Lucas v. American Federation of Government Employees, here, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided on August 15,
Continue Reading Unions Can’t Hide Behind the Duty of Fair Representation When it Comes to ADA and Title VII Compliance