Search
RSS
Subscribe

Enter your email address to receive new posts in your inbox:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Share

Like what you see? Share!

Twitter
Verrill Dana, LLP

Verrill Dana, LLP is one of New England's preeminent regional law firms. With offices in Portland and Augusta, ME; Boston, MA; Westport, CT; Providence, RI; and Washington D.C. Verrill Dana provides sophisticated legal representation to businesses and individuals in the traditional areas of litigation, real estate, business law, labor and employment law, employee benefits, environmental law, intellectual property and estate planning.  The Firm also has industry-focused specialties including higher education, health care and health technology, energy, and timberlands. 

Disclaimer:  The content presented in this blog is for general information only, is not intended to constitute legal advice and cannot be relied upon by any person as legal advice. While we welcome you to contact our blog authors at hrlawupdate@verrilldana.com, the submission of a comment or question does not create an attorney-client relationship between the Firm and you. 

Entries in ADA (37)

Thursday
Nov202014

Pushing a Wheelchair or Pushing the Limits?

An Illinois hairdresser who worked at a nursing home has raised a triable question for a jury as to whether her ability to wheel nonambulatory residents to the salon was an essential function of her job as a hairdresser. The case was on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, after the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer (Petersen Health Care VII, LLC) finding that pushing the wheelchair was, in fact, an essential function of the position. The Seventh Circuit, however, disagreed reversing and remanding the case for trial. The Court noted that wheeling a patient from his or her room to the salon may not have been an essential function “if it was so small a part that it could be reassigned to other employees at a negligible cost to the employer.” Further, the Court noted that even if the employee, Debra Kauffman, was permanently restricted from wheeling patients, this fact does not “automatically” excuse the employer from “making any attempt to accommodate” her. You can read the whole opinion here. If you are faced with questions regarding the ADA or your requirements under the interactive process give a member of Verrill Dana’s labor and employment department a call.

Thursday
Nov062014

Complimentary Webinar to Review Recent Legal Issues with Wellness Programs

Join Richard Moon and Chris Lockman on Thursday, November 20, from 9:00 – 10:00 a.m. for a complimentary webinar that will provide a general overview of the final wellness program regulations and recent EEOC litigation attacking certain wellness programs. The DOL, HHS, and the Treasury Department have released detailed guidance explaining how wellness programs may be designed and operated in a manner that satisfies the nondiscrimination requirements of HIPAA. However, even an employer that has adhered to these regulations may not be insulated from EEOC enforcement activity and lawsuits brought under the ADA, Title VII or GINA. Recent litigation commenced by the EEOC brings these issues to the fore. Richard and Chris will explain the current state of affairs regarding wellness programs and offer recommendations for employers who wish to maintain compliant wellness programs while managing their exposure under the ADA, Title VII, and GINA.
 
Register for this webinar on the Verrill Dana website.

Tuesday
Jul152014

What to Expect from the EEOC When You Are Expecting: How the EEOC’s Recent Guidance Affects Employers in a Post-Hobby Lobby World

Contraceptives, accommodations, pregnancy, Hobby Lobby, these buzz words have employers and Human Resource professionals on their toes as to how to handle a seemingly regular (albeit wonderful and special) occurrence—child birth. And yesterday, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) decided to shake things up a bit by offering a bit of guidance that further complicates the “limited” Hobby Lobby ruling.

Click to read more ...

Tuesday
Jun172014

Where Do You Work?

Depending on your point of view, a recent decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals either recognizes the effect that technology has on an employee’s need to be physically present in the workplace or may ultimately require employers to make the choice between allowing workers to use a telecommuting policy to its fullest extent regardless of its effect upon operations and tightening these policies to avoid legal liability.

Click to read more ...

Monday
May052014

EEOC Issues ADA Discussion Letter

On April 22, 2014, the EEOC released an informal discussion letter regarding policies and forms related to reasonable accommodation requests under the ADA. The letter was in response to an inquiry for a “member of the public” who had written regarding the use of a sample reasonable accommodation policy and accompanying sample forms—neither the sample form nor the policy, however, were attached to the EEOC’s letter. While not attached, the letter still provided some more general guidance that we should be mindful of.

The letter notes that because accommodations must be handled on an individualized basis it is “difficult to develop a policy and related forms that can address all variables,” and that because ADA law is constantly developing it is a “risk to conclude . . . that certain things never (or almost never) have to be provided as reasonable accommodations.”

Click to read more ...

Thursday
Aug012013

No “But For’s” About It: Congress Responds to Nassar

In response to the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, and the Court’s 2009 decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services Inc., (which held that an employee suing under the ADEA is also subject to the “but for” standard) a bipartisan group of lawmakers reintroduced legislation in the House and Senate on July 30, 2013, that would allow an employee to raise a wide range of discrimination and retaliation claims under a “mixed motive” theory of discrimination.

Click to read more ...