Once a hot employment law issue, drug testing has been cool for quite some time. Most courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have ruled that there’s nothing wrong with testing for unlawful drugs, particularly in the private sector. So, for two decades, an increasing number of employers do drug testing routinely. The types of drug testing most commonly done are pre-employment, for cause or reasonable suspicion (for example, when an employee is involved in an accident at work, seems to be under the influence of something, etc.), and random.

(more…)

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act, alcoholism is a disability. However, an alcoholic can be held to the same standards as other workers. He can be disciplined and even terminated if alcoholism interferes with work. Also, if an alcoholic employee comes to work while drinking or drunk, he can be fired.

(more…)

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), placing a disabled employee (who is qualified) in a vacant position has always been a reasonable accommodation. But when is a position vacant? That may seem like a question easily answered, but not always. The recent case of Duvall v. Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products, decided by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, shows why.

(more…)

Jon Hyman has an excellent post on the effect of the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act (ADAAA) on many types of illnesses and diseases, cancer in particular. His post includes a summary of one of the first cases decided under the ADAAA. Before the ADA was amended, if an employee’s cancer was in remission, there was probably no disability. This conclusion was based on decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, which were overturned by the ADAAA.

(more…)

In EEOC v. UPS, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals considered the issue of reasonable accommodation in a lawsuit filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act. (The suit arose before the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act became effective.) The court’s decision is instructive on several issues involved in disability discrimination lawsuits. 

(more…)

Hardly a surprise, USA Today recently reported that, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, disability discrimination claims increased last year more than at any other time in the 20-year history of the Americans with Disabilities Act. As predicted, the amendments to the ADA are having their impact. In 2010, we’ll see another increase in disability claims filed with the EEOC and disability lawsuits filed in federal court.

(more…)

As I’ve noted before on this blog (here and here), the ADA Amendments Act is likely to result in significantly different court decisions in disability discrimination cases than would have occurred under the original Americans with Disabilities Act. Jon Hyman has an excellent post, using a real case to illustrate the potential difference that will be caused by the ADAAA. Time will tell, of course, as we wait for judicial opinions, but it’s hard to disagree with Jon Hyman’s opinion: “Under the ADAAA, almost every medical condition will qualify as a disability.”

Much has been favorably written about the 20th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. It is my view, however, that the ADA hasn’t helped the truly disabled as much as it’s helped people with ordinary physical and mental ailments. With the passage of the ADA Amendments Act and its new definition of disability, this unfortunate result will be exacerbated.

(more…)

Ever asked someone at work, “What’s wrong?” It’s a common question in all parts of life. In the workplace, we’re sometimes reluctant to ask. It may be because we really don’t want to know or fear a long explanation. It may be because we’re afraid we’ll find out something we’re not supposed to know. It may be because we’re just not big on communication.

(more…)

In Colwell v Rite Aid Corp., the Third Circuit Court of Appeals might provide a preview of what it’s going to be like under the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA), even though the Colwell case arose before the ADAAA became effective and was decided under the old ADA. In deciding this case, the Third Circuit makes it clear that it is applying the old ADA, not the new ADAAA. However, it seems unlikely that any court can decide a disability discrimination case these days, regardless of whether it was filed before or after the ADAAA’s effective date, without at least subconsciously taking into account that a new day has dawned for disability discrimination cases.

(more…)