Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
 Business Necessity Defense under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Bates v. United Parcel Service, Inc. Case No. 04-17295 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit The Ninth Circuit agreed with NCLC and vacated and remanded a panel decision holding that UPS violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when it refused to consider deaf workers for jobs driving smaller vehicles that are not covered by a Department of Transportation hearing standard that applies to larger vehicles. NCLC argued that the Ninth Circuit panel erred in rejecting UPS's business necessity defense because the decision unreasonably ignores legitimate safety concerns. Public policy calls for balancing the ADA's goals of promoting qualified individuals with disabilities in the workplace against employers' legitimate need to protect the safety of their employees, customers and the general public. Amicus brief filed 5/23/07. Decision 12/28/07.
 View briefJob Reassignment under the Americans with Disabilities Act Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.No. 06-2238 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
In a case of first impression for the Eighth Circuit, NCLC urges the court to reverse a district court holding requiring Wal-Mart to give preferential treatment to a disabled employee who could no longer perform the essential functions of her job. When the plaintiff could no longer perform the essential functions of her job, Wal-Mart did not automatically reassign her to an equivalent vacant position, but required her to compete with other candidates for the position pursuant to the company's well established practice of placing the most qualified candidate in every position. In its brief, NCLC argues that the ADA does not supersede legitimate, non-discriminatory employer policies, including management's right to choose the best candidates for open positions.
Amicus brief filed 7/26/06. Oral Argument to be held on 12/12/06. Decision 5/30/07.
 The ADA and Employees with Violent Criminal HistoryJosephs v. Pacific Bell Telephone CompanyNo. 03-56412 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit NCLC filed a letter brief with the Ninth Circuit urging them to grant rehearing en banc in this case involving claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") made by an employee with a violent criminal history. The Ninth Circuit has affirmed a jury verdict holding Pacific Bell Telephone Company liable under the ADA for refusing to reinstate an employee with a violent criminal past to a position that requires unsupervised work in customers' homes after he had been terminated for lying about his history on his employment application. NCLC argues that the lower court erred in several rulings regarding evidentiary matters and jury instructions that affected the outcome of the jury's decision. Further, NCLC argues that this ruling has negative legal and practical consequences for employers in the Ninth Circuit, preventing employers from taking actions based on common sense if they learn that co-workers or customers might be at risk because of an employee with a violent criminal past. Letter brief filed 1/20/06. 
 Definition of "Disability" under Maine Human Relations Act
Whitney v. Wal-Mart Store
No. FED-05-172
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Joining the state chamber and others, NCLC urges Maine's highest court to reject an unwarranted broadening of the definition of "disability" under the state's anti-discrimination statute that would encompass virtually every Maine citizen at one point or another. A federal judge certified the issue to the state supreme court for guidance on state law. Maine currently adheres to the federal definition of "disability".
Amicus brief in support of defendant Wal-Mart filed 7/1/05.
View brief
Extraterritorial Application of the Americans with Disabilities Act
Spector, et al. v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd.
No. 03-1388
U. S. Supreme Court
In a splintered decision, the Supreme Court concluded that Title III of the Americans with Disability Act applied to foreign-flagged cruise ships which occasionally call on American ports. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court limited its holding to structural modifications which are "readily achievable" and do not "interfere with the internal affairs of foreign ships." The Court held that that those determinations should be made on a case-by-case basis.
Brief on the merits filed 1/24/05. Moot court held 2/15/05. Decision 6/6/05.
View brief
ADA and Disability Coverage for Mental Illness
James Johnson v. Kmart Corporation
No. 99-14563
U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
NCLC had urged reversal of an Eleventh Circuit panel holding that a prior panel's decision is no longer valid because it had been undercut by the Supreme Court's decision in Robinson v. Shell Oil Company. The prior panel decision held that a former employee who was not "a qualified individual with a disability" as defined by the ADA could not recover on an ADA claim based on discrimination in fringe benefits.
En banc brief in support of defendant-appellee and in support of affirmance filed 1/18/02. Stayed pending resolution of Kmart bankruptcy. Additional briefing regarding the effect of the bankruptcy proceedings on this case ordered 7/2/03. Plaintiff's execution of a Settlement Agreement filed 8/18/04. Motion to dismiss appeal granted 9/20/04.
Application of Americans with Disabilities Act to Company Websites
Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co.
Case No. 02-16163-BB
U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
The court of appeals dismissed the case, stating it was unable to reach the merits of the case because the issues on appeal were not properly before the court. The plaintiffs filed this action alleging that the website Southwest.com should be accessible to disabled individuals because the website is a place of public accommodation under Title III of the ADA. The district court dismissed the case, finding that Southwest.com is not a place of public accommodation. On appeal, however, plaintiffs argued for the first time that Southwest Airlines as a whole is a place of public accommodation because it operates a travel service and that is has violated Title III precisely because of the websites connection with Southwest's travel service. In its brief, NCLC argued that the website was not a place of public accommodation and, further, that the connection with Southwest's travel service does not render the website a place of public accommodation. Since the court of appeals dismissed the case, the decision of the district court, holding that Southwest.com is not covered by Title III of the ADA, still stands.
Amicus brief filed 4/16/03. Oral argument held 11/6/03. Case dismissed 9/24/04.
|
Share This Page