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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today’s blog entry came down to a close call between two cases that were decided last week. In the first case, Robin Shea, of Constangy Brooks, discussed a religious accommodation case, here, which also has significant implications for the disability rights universe. I highly commend her blog entry. I do plan to blog on that case myself. The case that did make the cut for this week is Mullin v. Sec., US Department of Veterans Affairs, here, a published per curiam decision from the 11th Circuit decided on August 8, 2025. I actually know one of the plaintiff’s…
Continue Reading Unlawful Disclosure is a Separate Private Right of Action Under Both the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA and other stuff