Source: http://ilru.org/dlrp/html/topical/employment/emp_qual.html
Timestamp: 2013-12-12 03:37:53
Document Index: 396203064

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 12111', '§ 12114', '§ 12114', '§ 1630', '§ 1630', '§ 1630', '§ 1630']

Disability Law Index - Employment: Discrimination (General Rule)
Disability Law Index - Employment: Discrimination (General Rule) Statutes
42 U.S.C. 12112(a) - Discrimination - General rule (under
the original ADA)
No covered entity shall discriminate
against a qualified individual with a disability because of
the disability of such individual in regard to job application
procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees,
employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions,
and privileges of employment.
42 U.S.C. 12112(a) - Discrimination - General rule (as
amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008)
against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in
regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement,
or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training,
and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.
42 U.S.C. § 12111(8) (as amended by the ADA Amendments
Act of 2008 through strikethroughs) The term qualified individual with a disability means an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires. For the purposes of this subchapter, consideration shall be given to the employer's judgment as to what functions of a job are essential, and if an employer has prepared a written description before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job, this description shall be considered evidence of the essential functions of the job.
42 U.S.C. § 12114(a) (under the original ADA) For purposes of this subchapter, the term qualified individual with a disability shall not include any employee or applicant who is currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs, when the covered entity acts on the basis of such use.
42 U.S.C. § 12114(a) (as amended by the ADA Amendments
Act of 2008) For purposes of this subchapter, a qualified individual
with a disability shall not include any employee or applicant
who is currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs, when the
covered entity acts on the basis of such use.
29 C.F.R. § 1630.4 Discrimination prohibited.
(1) It is unlawful for a covered entity
to discriminate on the basis of disability against a qualified
individual in regard to:
(ii) Hiring, upgrading, promotion, award of tenure, demotion,
transfer, layoff, termination, right of return from layoff, and
(iii) Rates of pay or any other form of compensation and changes
in compensation;
(iv) Job assignments, job classifications, organizational structures,
(vi) Fringe benefits available by virtue of employment, whether
or not administered by the covered entity;
(vii) Selection and financial support for training, including:
apprenticeships, professional meetings, conferences and other related
(viii) Activities sponsored by a covered entity, including social
and recreational programs; and
(2) The term discrimination includes, but is not limited to,
the acts described in §§ 1630.4 through 1630.13 of
(b) Claims of no disability. Nothing in this part shall provide
the basis for a claim that an individual without a disability
was subject to discrimination because of his lack of disability,
including a claim that an individual with a disability was granted
an accommodation that was denied to an individual without a disability.
29 C.F.R § 1630.2(m)
Qualified individual with a disability means an individual with a disability who satisfies the requisite skill, experience, education and other job-related requirements of the employment position such individual holds or desires, and who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of such position.
29 C.F.R § 1630.15 - Defenses (excerpt) (f) Claims based on transitory and minor impairments under
the “regarded as” prong. It may be a defense to
a charge of discrimination by an individual claiming coverage
under the “regarded as” prong of the definition
of disability that the impairment is (in the case of an actual
impairment) or would be (in the case of a perceived impairment) “transitory
and minor.” To establish this defense, a covered entity
must demonstrate that the impairment is both “transitory” and “minor.” Whether
the impairment at issue is or would be “transitory and
minor” is to be determined objectively. A covered entity
may not defeat “regarded as” coverage of an individual
simply by demonstrating that it subjectively believed the impairment
was transitory and minor; rather, the covered entity must demonstrate
that the impairment is (in the case of an actual impairment)
or would be (in the case of a perceived impairment) both transitory
and minor. For purposes of this section, “transitory” is
defined as lasting or expected to last six months or less.
Cleveland v. Policy Management Systems Corp., 526 U.S. 795 (1999).
The plaintiff had applied for and received Social Security
Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits. The Social Security program
provides benefits to "a person with a disability so severe
that she is 'unable to do [her] previous work' and 'cannot
... engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which
exists in the national economy.'" 42 U.S.C. � 423(d)(2)(A).
She also pursued an ADA disability discrimination suit claiming
that with reasonable accommodation she could perform the essential
functions of her job.
Even though her two claims seem
to contradict each other, the Supreme Court held that the
pursuit and receipt of SSDI benefits does not automatically
estop the recipient from pursuing an ADA claim nor does
it raise strong presumption against the recipient's success
under the ADA. "There are too many situations in which an SSDI claim and an ADA claim can comfortably exist side
by side." The ADA plaintiff can not simply ignore
her SSDI claim that she was too disabled to work. To survive
a motion for summary judgment, she must explain the (in)consistency
of the two claims. In this situation, the plaintiff pointed
out that whether an individual is disabled for SSDI purposes
does not take the possibility of "reasonable accommodation" into account. "An ADA suit claiming that
the plaintiff can perform her job with reasonable accommodation
may well prove consistent with an SSDI claim that the plaintiff
could not perform her own job (or other jobs) without it." The plaintiff also adequately explained that the basis of the
two claims arose out of different time periods.