Blog Authors

Latest from Understanding the ADA

I hope everybody had a great Fourth of July weekend.
 
Today’s blog entry deals with a couple of different questions. First, in a situation where a person can no longer do the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodations, is reassignment mandatory or is it subject to open competition? Second, what kind of notice does the employer need in order to activate the reassignment process, assuming it is mandatory. The case of the day is Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. William Beaumont Hospital, here, decided in the process of considering motions for summary judgment on
Continue Reading What Notice is Required to Activate the Mandatory Reassignment Process Assuming a Mandatory Reassignment Process Exists in the First Place

Before getting started on the blog entry of the week, I want to wish everyone a happy Fourth of July holiday. Be safe and have fun.
 
Today’s blog entry is a published decision from the Fourth Circuit, Tarquinio v. Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab decided on June 25, 2025, which can be found here, where the plaintiff with a disability loses, but there is some fantastic language in the opinion for persons with disabilities going forward. Other bloggers, such as Amy Epstein Gluck, have covered the case, but I thought I could add my own perspective. As
Continue Reading Plaintiff Loses But Persons with Disabilities Going Forward Don’t

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
 

  • For purposes of Supreme Court review, the Court assumed that

  • Continue Reading Stanley Decided

    As everyone knows, I normally don’t blog more than once a week but there are exceptions. I had a bit of time this morning and this is a very short blog entry, so I decided to do a blog entry more than once this week. I am not at all sure about my schedule for next week, so it is possible my blog for next week may appear at any time during the week or even not at all.

    The blog entry of the day is United States v. Skrmetti, here, decided by the United States Supreme Court on
    Continue Reading The Equal Protection Classification of Transgender Individuals and its Implications for the ADA Going Forward

    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

    As many of my readers know, Justice Souter died last week. I thought I would explore his legacy with respect to the rights of persons with disabilities. As usual, the blog entry is divided into categories and they are: opinions for the court; concurring opinions; dissenting opinions; and Heller v. Doe, a dissenting opinion the gets a category all of its own. Of course, the reader is free to focus on any or all of the categories.

    I

    Opinions for the Court

  • Justice Souter wrote the opinion in Albertson’s v. Kirkingburg, here. In that case, the Court

  • Continue Reading Justice Souter’s Impact on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

    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

    Before getting started on the blog entry of the week, I want to wish everyone celebrating Passover, a happy Passover. Also, want to wish everyone celebrating Easter this weekend, a happy Easter.

    Turning to the blog entry of the day, Omar v. Wayne State University Board of Governors, here, decided by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on April 4, 2025, is a case with a lot to unpack. Among the issues to discuss are whether attending law school remotely is a reasonable accommodation and what kind of deference is owed to educational
    Continue Reading Remote Learning as a Reasonable Accommodation, Deference to Educational Institutions, and Other Good Stuff

    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

    Picture immediately above is a Track and field starting line (white lane numbers on orange track)
     
    Today’s blog entry has been getting a lot of press on Law 360, which I subscribe to. It was brought to my attention by one of their journalists, Anne Cullen, who wrote an excellent article on it (here, subscription required). In that article, she solicited the opinions of several attorneys, including myself, who were very knowledgeable about the ADA. There was absolutely no daylight between any of us. I have also seen some reports, which I anticipated, that the Second Circuit
    Continue Reading The Starting Line is What the ADA and Rehabilitation Act are All About