us supreme court

Mike Maslanka

i see in today's new york times that the us supreme court will decide what it means to be substantially limited in a major life function...the case is toyoya motors v. williams out of the 6th circuit,where the plaintiff prevailed...also the court will look at whether an employer--in the collective bargaining context--must bump another employee's seniority if needed to put an ada disabled employee in that person's job...it's us airways v.barnett out of the 9th circuit...regards to all from dallas---mike maslanka

Mike Maslanka

>i see in today's new york times that the us supreme court will decide
>what it means to be substantially limited in a major life
>function...the case is toyota motors v. williams out of the 6th
>circuit,where the plaintiff prevailed...also the court will look at
>whether an employer--in the collective bargaining context--must bump
>another employee's seniority if needed to put an ada disabled employee
>in that person's job...it's us airways v.barnett out of the 9th
>circuit...regards to all from dallas---mike maslanka

well,the court will hear oral argument on the toyota case on novemebr 7th and the us airways case the first week of december...we'll keep you posted...regards from texas,mike maslanka

Gar

Mike,

My gut feeling tells me the Supremes will say "no" to an employee's right to an accommodation that violates a seniority system. Your thoughts, please.

Theresa Gegen TX

Mike agrees with you on that Gar. (That the court will uphold the senority system).

I am not so sure. The case involves not a Union Bargained for seniority system under a CBA, but involes a company seniority system. So the court might side with the employee, that the employee should have got the vacant job as an accomodation. That type of decision could open a whole can of worms about whether an employer must "bump" employees to accomodate a disabled employee or whether an employer must give a vacant job to a lessor qualified disabled employee.

phbair

These are two of the three cases currently before the Supreme Court involving people with disabilities, though the third - EEOC v. Waffle House (CA4, No. 98-1502, 10/6/99) - is not strictly an "ADA case." Waffle House tests whether the EEOC may file an ADA lawsuit on behalf of an employee who is otherwise barred from suing his employer by a compulsory arbitration agreement.

Mike Maslanka

i see the high court has granted review of a california case where the employer would not let an employee work a job because he was considered a direct threat to himself...they are also thinking about taking on another california case dealing with whether the duty of reasonable accommodation is ongoing or ends at some point in time...regards from texas,mike maslanka,1214-659-4668

System

I've always felt that the duty is mixed to some extent, depending on the place, the work and the nature of the need.

Certainly, at the start, the employer needs to check out reasonable accommodation to see if they are effective. That may only be done by trial and effort. I wouldn't be suprised if in some cases, there may be many with variation that work and many that wouldn't or don't -- or in any combination. But I can't believe that it's the actual ADA intent for the employer to try out EVERY reasonable accommodation possiblity before concluding that there are none that are effective. Given that the process does require "good faith" on the part of the employer and the employee, can't that be the requirement for trying out reasonable number of accommodations accommodations (that look like they could be effective) once the disability and need are established? At some point, it seems to me the employer can say none are working even though not all accommodations have been tried to the "nth" degree. While it's "reasonable" accommodations, it, by definition, must be reasonable number of accommodations, given the need and disaiblity issues.

But once the effective reasonable accommodations are established, obviously, it is possible tht the disability situation changes, and certainly work conditions change. It seems to me both the employer and the employee then have the ongoing obligation to mutually monitor the accommodations and if they no longer are effective, to implement new ones, if they exist, by going back to the first evaluation process, even if several years have passed.

Mike Maslanka

well,today the advocates of a restricted view of the ada pitched a shut out as the supreme court ruled 9-0(with no footnotes ,which a losing party scours for some ambiguous comment so they can fight another day),and said that (1)work was probably not a major life function;(2)that doing manual tasks is,but that it only rises to the level of a disability when a person cannot do a variety of things we take for granted---such brushing your teeth,combing your hair,feeding yourself,(3)and---although not stated---this case highlights the contours of the catch 22 many persons find themselves in---if they are *that* hampered in performing a simple task at home,then they are most likely unable to do any job(that is,they are not a qualified individaul with a disability),and the only way to accomodate them is by chaging a job's essential functions which by definition is not a reasonable accomodation...so,the more they testify that they can not do these simple functions,in order to be ada covered,the more likely they testify themselves into not being a qualified individual with a disability,and poof goes their lawsuit...regards from the lone star state,mike maslanka,214-659-4668

System

Mike wrote a good overview of the Supreme Court's decision for this week's Employers in the Courtroom feature on HRhero.com. See [url]http://www.hrhero.com[/url]

Christy Reeder
Website Managing Editor
[url]www.HRhero.com[/url]

Steve Hall

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 01-10-02 AT 05:24PM (CST)[/font][p]I'm thinking with the Toyota decision, the Court is indicating a narrower view of the ADA than many circuits have used in recent years. I believe there are two California cases before the Court (briefly referred to above) that may also result in management-friendly decisions--and I think that may provoke a landslide of either new litigation or new legislation (or both!) to tone down some of the very liberal worker protection laws in that state.

Opinions? (I'm not a lawyer; I tend to apply common sense to these things--unfortunately, that's a commodity in exceedingly short supply lately.)

(EDIT: Forgot to say, very nice synopsis, Mike--thanks!)

~Steve in SD~

Gillian

Nope, it won't happen, Steve. California is decidedly worker friendly and will always be that way. New legislation to limit our employee friendliness will only happen if the legislature changes and that is very doubtful because demographics aren't in favor of change. I've worked in HR in California for so long that I suppose I am used to our approach and it doesn't bother me. I suppose we are at the extreme, employee friendlinesswise, but I would rather have that than the other extreme.

bsa

>Mike wrote a good overview of the Supreme Court's decision for this
>week's Employers in the Courtroom feature on HRhero.com. See
>[url]http://www.hrhero.com[/url]
>
>Christy Reeder
>Website Managing Editor
>[url]www.HRhero.com[/url]

Christy, I hope you edited it!!! Sorry Mike, but your typing and spelling are unique

Mike Maslanka

no problem,she did and she did a great job...mike