Posted On: June 27, 2008

What Are An Employer's Obligations Under The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)?

The ADA requires covered employers to make a reasonable accommodation to the known disability of a qualified applicant or employee if the accommodation would not impose an "undue hardship" on the employer's business.

In general, undue hardship means an action that requires significant difficulty or expense, when considered in light of these factors:

(i) the nature and cost of the accommodation needed under the ADA;

(ii) the overall financial resources of the facility or facilities involved in the provision of the reasonable accommodation; the number of persons employed at such facility; the effect on expenses and resources, or the impact otherwise of such accommodation upon the operation of the facility;

(iii) the overall financial resources of the covered entity; the overall size of the business of a covered entity with respect to the number of its employees; the number, type, and location of its facilities; and

(iv) the type of operation or operations of the covered entity, including the composition, structure, and functions of the workforce of such entity; the geographic separateness, administrative, or fiscal relationship of the facility or facilities in question to the covered
entity.

Posted On: June 26, 2008

Who is Covered by the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)?

The ADA protects employees or applicants who satisfy the test of being a "qualified individual with a disability," which means an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the job. If an employee or applicant satisfies the definition of being a qualified individual with a disability, then the employer must provide a reasonable accommodation unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer's operations.

Continue reading " Who is Covered by the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)? " »

Posted On: June 26, 2008

Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12113

As a courtesy to lawyers, The Employment Law Chronicle provides links to the text of key Federal, Virginia, and District of Columbia labor and employment laws published on public sites.

The ADA prohibits employment discrimination against "a qualified individual with a disability" because of the disability in regard to job application procedures, hiring, promotion, discharge, compensation, training, or other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. The ADA also governs medical examinations and disability-related inquiries.


Covered Employers. The ADA applies to education instutitions, state, local, and private-sector employers with 15 or more employees; employment agencies; labor organizations; and joint labor management committees. It does not apply to the federal government or private membership clubs (other than a labor organization). Coverage of multinational employers depends on a variety of factors, as explained here by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.


Posted On: June 25, 2008

Virginia Human Rights Act, Virginia Code Chapter 39, §§ 2.2-3900 et. seq.

As a courtesy to lawyers, The Employment Law Chronicle provides links to the text of key Federal, Virginia, and District of Columbia labor and employment laws published on public sites.

The Virginia Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination because of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, age, marital status, or disability.
Posted On: June 24, 2008

4th Circuit Court of Appeals, Employment Law Decisions

In two recent decisions, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit focused on relevant standards of review for two issues of interest to Virginia immigration and employment lawyers:

In Woods v. Prudential Ins. Co., No. 07-1580 (June 11, 2008), the Fourth Circuit concluded that the trial court erroneously applied the "abuse-of-discretion" standard of review to plaintiff's ERISA claim instead of the more rigorous "de novo" standard of review to determine whether the plan administrator properly denied plaintiff's benefit claim.

In Teshome-Gebreegziabher v. Mukasey, No. 08-1060 (June 16, 2008), the Fourth Circuit clarified that the "clear and convincing" standard of review applies to an immigrant's motion to stay deportation.