Unit Four GRP.- Discrimination Part 3
GRP part One
Your supervisor has been asked to give a presentation on the effects of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) on employer discrimination at an upcoming conference. She has asked your team to research recent court decisions and analyze the impact the ADA is having in the workplace. She will create her presentation based on your findings.
Individual deliverable: 1-2 pages
GRP part Two
Use the Library or other web resources to locate a recent court decision involving the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA).
¥ Summarize the relevant facts of the case
¥ Discuss how the ADA applies to this case
The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) was designed to protect workers with disabilities against employer discrimination. As a group, discuss the following:
¥ In actual practice, how well does the Act achieve this goal?
¥ Explain the difference in protection for someone with a correctable disability and a non-correctable disability.
¥ How did the ADA affect the right of an individual with a correctable disability to sue an employer for discrimination?
¥ Support your answer with examples from the recent court decisions researched during the individual portion of this assignment.
Deliverable length 1 page.
The Americans with Disabilities Act
GRP Part 1
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is an important civil law that was adopted in 1990. The act prohibits any form of discrimination against persons with disabilities in the areas of employment, transportation, schooling, access to public and private places, and in other areas. The ADA does not give special privileges to the disabled, rather the act exists to give the disabled equal privileges or opportunities as those without disabilities. The ADA basically ensures that the disabled are not denied their rights in various areas of life. This paper looks at the impact of ADA in the workplace by analyzing recent court decisions relating to the same.
ADA has greatly contributed to equality by barring employers from discriminating against potential job candidates suffering from various conditions such as HIV & AIDS, diabetes, and others. In the United States of America v. Bolivar County, the plaintiff complained that Bolivar County, the defendant, had grossly violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. The violation arose after Bolivar County terminated Gomillia’s services on learning that he was diabetic. Gomillia had already earned a job with the county as a correctional officer. The county conducted a post-hire physical examination where Gomillia revealed that he was diabetic. It was held that this amounted to discrimination and a gross violation of the act (“United States Department of Justice,” 2015).
The ADA ensures that employers put in place reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities in the workplace. The act defines a reasonable accommodation as any physical changes or modifications that does not result to too much expenses. Employers are also required to provide other forms of accommodations such as granting sick leave to employees. In EEOC v. Comprehensive Behavioral Health Center, the defendant refused to provide reasonable accommodation to Pamela Perry, an employee who developed multiple sclerosis. The charging party, Perry, had requested the organization to allow her to wear athletic shoes due to her condition. The defendant allowed Perry to wear the athletic shoes for a period of time, but later withdrew the privilege. Perry developed complications after wearing normal shoes and was subsequently laid off. The court held that the defendant was in violation of the ADA (“EEOC,” 2015).
The act ensures that employees with any form of disabilities receive fair wages that are commensurate to the industry standards. In other words, the act prohibits employers from paying discriminatory wages based on employees’ abilities. In EEOC v. Hill County Farms, EEOC acting on behalf of 32 intellectually-disabled employees brought a lawsuit against the defendant for gross violations of the employees’ rights as per ADA. The complaints filed included: non-payment of salaries, physical harassment, verbal abuses, and poor working conditions. The court held that the defendant violated the terms of ADA. Subsequently, the defendant was fined and forced to conform to the ADA’s provisions (“EEOC,” 2015). The defendant was also required to undergo training relating to ADA.
In Claudia Estrada v. San Antonio Independent School District (File 2014), the plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging that the defendant had failed to provide reasonable accommodation with regard to the plaintiff’s disability (“ADA Case Law Database,” 2015). The plaintiff also complained of gross mismanagement of the education plan. The plaintiff suffered from cerebral palsy and had to use a wheelchair. The defendant had provided the plaintiff with an aide who came to assist during washroom visits. On several occasions, the aide molested the plaintiff while escorting him alone. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging lack of reasonable accommodation. The court ruled in favor of the defendant. The ruling was based on the fact the bathrooms had special devices that were meant to be used by students with disabilities, and thus complied with ADA requirements. Additionally, the court noted that on most occasions, the plaintiff had two aides. It was only on few occasions that the plaintiff had one aide.
ADA applies to the above case since it involves a person with disabilities. In the case, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging that the institution failed to provide reasonable accommodation as per his condition. The ADA requires that employers and other institutions such as schools provide reasonable accommodation to persons with disabilities. The plaintiff lost the case since the institution had already provided reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities.
The act achieves its goals by ensuring that employees with disabilities are compensated for the damages or injuries incurred as a result of the employers’ discriminatory practices. On various occasions, the act requires employers to reinstate employees to their earlier positions or to provide jobs to qualified applicants who had earlier been denied due to disabilities. This is evident in the United States of America v. Bolivar County.
For someone with correctable disability, the act requires employers to provide reasonable accommodation to the employees. For instance, the act requires employers and employees to discuss about paid sick leave in case the employee has a temporal disability. For those with non-correctable disability, the court allows the employer to dismiss the employee if reasonable accommodation cannot be provided. This is highlighted in In EEOC v. Comprehensive Behavioral Health Center case.
ADA affected the right of individual by providing a condition that the employer should only provide reasonable accommodation. If the employee requires accommodation that may be expensive to provide, then the employer is not mandated to provide such. This is well documented in Claudia Estrada v. San Antonio Independent School District case.
ADA Case Law Database. (2015). ADA Case Law Digest. Retrieved from http://www.adacaselaw.org/Digests/2015/spring2015.asp
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). (2015). Fact sheet on recent EEOC litigation-related developments under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Retrieved from EEOC website https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/litigation/selected/ada_litigation_facts.cfm
United States Department of Justice. (2015). Information and technical assistance on the Americans with Disabilities Act. Retrieved from ADA Website https://www.ada.gov/enforce_current.htm