- In General
     - Applicant/Employee Medical Exams
     - Accommodation – in General
     - Accommodation - Teleworking
     - Constitutionality
     - Damages
     - Inmates/Prisoners
     - Light Duty
     - Psychiatric
     - Regarded as Disabled 
     - Retaliation
     - Specific Disabilities
     - TDD/Sign Language & Physical Barriers

HANDICAP LAWS / ABILITIES DISCRIMINATION - IN GENERAL

     Ninth Circuit holds that a police disability pension plan can deduct the amount of worker's compensation a disabled or injured officer may receive. The offset does not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. Brown v. City of Los Angeles, #06-0952, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 7650 (9th Cir.)
     Eighth Circuit holds that a county did not violate the ADA by terminating an untenured worker, following open heart surgery, where he lacked a property interest in his continued employment and expressly agreed in a contract that his "immediate termination" would result from taking leave without pay. Zwygart v. Bd. of Co. Cmsnrs., #06-3084, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 9351 (8th Cir.).
     A fire captain, who was involuntarily reassigned to other duties after the loss of a leg during a duty-related accident, did not suffer an adverse employment action. Although he claimed that he earned less overtime in the new assignment, he failed to take advantage of overtime opportunities that were available to him. Malais v. Los Angeles City Fire Dept., #B189575, 150 Cal.App.4th 350, 2007 Cal. App. Lexis 666 (2d Dist.).
     Former fire chief was not required to appeal his termination because of alcoholism to the civil service commission before filing a suit under a state discrimination law. There is nothing to suggest that the legislature meant to treat civil service employees differently than other employees. Dworning v. City of Euclid, 2006-Ohio-6772, 18 AD Cases (BNA) 1668, 2006 Ohio App. Lexis 6685 (8th App. Dist.).
     Ohio appellate court upholds a two-year statute of limitations for discrimination lawsuits brought by public employees or applicants, even though there is a longer period for suits against private employers. Anglen v. Ohio State Univ., #06AP-901, 2007-Ohio-935, 2007 Ohio App. Lexis 889 (10th App. Dist.).
     U.S. Office of Personnel Management issues final regulations regarding the appointment of persons with mental retardation, severe physical disabilities, and psychiatric disabilities. Appointment of Persons With Disabilities and Career and Career-Conditional Employment, 71 (143) Fed. Reg. 42241-46 (7/26/06). {N/R}
     Former employee with mobility and speech impairments failed to prove that her discharge for covering up a security camera violated the state's Handicap Act; the employer had an absolute right to install security cameras in the hallways and it had an announced policy warning that tampering with electronic equipment was grounds for termination. Oates v. Chattanooga Pub. Co., #E2005-00778, 2006 Tenn. App. Lexis 190, 17 AD Cases (BNA) 1702 (2006). {N/R}
     Federal court allows four former Philadelphia police officers who were terminated for being "permanently and partially disabled" to proceed with their state and federal discrimination claims. Keys v. City of Philadelphia, #04-0766, 2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 30137, 17 AD Cases (BNA) 714 (E.D. Pa. 2005). {N/R}
     MSPB affirms an arbitrator's holding that an employee, who was terminated for poor performance, was not "disabled" and entitled to an accommodation. Moreover, an employee must first show that a reasonable accommodation is possible and a causal connection between his disability and the charged misconduct. Bohannon v. Dept. of Homeland Security, #CB-7121-05-0019-V-1, 99 M.S.P.R. 307, 2005 MSPB Lexis 3806 (MSPB 2005).{N/R}
     Tenth Circuit joins with the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Circuits, in holding that a hostile environment claim is actionable under the ADA. Lanman v. Johnson County, #03-3316, 393 F.3d 1151, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 27200, 16 AD Cases (BNA) 449 (10th Cir., 2004). {N/R}
     City was not required to accommodate a bipolar employee, by giving him a transfer, after he had made threats in the workplace. Bradford v. City of Chicago, #04-1939, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 573 (Unpub., 7th Cir. 2004). [2005 FP Mar]
     Upholding a termination for intoxicated driving, the Eighth Circuit holds that a no substance abuse last-chance agreement does not violate the ADA. Longen v. Waterous Co., #02-3297, 347 F.3d 685, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 21190,14 AD Cases (BNA) 1665 (8th Cir. 2003). {N/R}
     A national survey of 442 employment discrimination cases litigated in 2002 under Title I of the ADA found that employers prevail 94.5 percent of the time in court and 78.1 percent of the time in EEOC hearings. The American Bar Association's Commission on Mental and Physical Disability Law published the survey. {N/R}
     A prison rule requiring employees who have been away for four or more days to submit a medical certification that includes a brief diagnosis violates the ADA, which prohibits any inquiry into a disability, unless job-related and consistent with business necessity. To establish the business necessity defense, an employer must show that the request is vital to the business and the information is no more intrusive than is necessary. Conroy v. N.Y. St. Dept. of Corr. Serv., #02-7415, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 12014 (2nd Cir. 2003). {N/R}
     Plaintiffs are not limited by the $300,000 federal cap on damages available under the ADA if a parallel state law lacks a damage cap. Gagliardo v. Connaught Laboratories, #01-4045, 311 F.3d 565, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 23953 (3d Cir. 2002). {N/R}
     Under Colorado law a sheriff, and not the Board of County Commissioners, is the employer of deputies for ADA discrimination purposes. Bristol v. Bd. of County Cmsnrs., #00-1053, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 25511 (10th Cir. 2002). {N/R}
     The correct causation standard in a Rehabilitation Act claim is whether discrimination is "solely by reason of" claimant's disability, notwhether discrimination is simply a motivating factor. Soledad v. U.S. Dept. of Treasury, #00-51300, 304 F.3d 500, 13 AD Cases (BNA) 865, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 18710 (5th Cir. 2002). {N/R}
     Federal appeals court dismisses a suit by a firefighter who was physically unable to perform his duties for 11 months. "Only a permanent or long-term condition will suffice to qualify a person for the ADA's protection." Rinkenberger v. City of Clearwater, MN, #01-3835, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 15560 (Unpub., 8th Cir. 2002). {N/R}
     Employers with less than 15 workers are subject to discrimination provisions of §504(d) of the Rehabilitation Act they are recipients of federal assistance. Schrader v. Ray, 00-5224, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 14344 (10th Cir. 2002). {N/R}
     Federal appeals court finds that an arthritic employee was terminated because of computer misuse and writing an inflammatory memo, rather than reasons related to his disability. Dvorak v. Mostardi Platt Assoc., #00-4309, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 9030 (7th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     Termination of a service technician for excessive work absences was a legitimate, nondiscriminatory and nonpretextual reason, in spite of his medical conditions (immune deficiency and clinical depression). Van Campen v. IBM, #1-00-2155, 2001 Ill. App. Lexis 924 (Ill. App. 2001). {N/R}
     Federal court refuses to dismiss a suit by an injured NYPD officer who was passed over for sergeant. Morris v. City of N.Y., #99 Civ. 9813, 153 F.Supp.2d 494, 2001 U.S. Dist. Lexis 11208 (S.D.N.Y.). [2002 FP Jan]
     Kansas City suburb pays $60,000 settlement after denying an insulin-dependent applicant a job as a fire dept. paramedic. U.S. v. City of North Kansas City, Mo. (Unrptd. W.D. Mo. 2001). [2001 FP 71]
     Justice Department announces agreements with six communities to improve access for disabled persons at courthouses, police stations, and other locations; www.doj.gov/ [2001 FP 71-2]
     A former police officer who was transferred to desk job because he has medication induced blood thinning condition was "regarded as disabled" under ADA; management believed the condition exposed him to danger. Gasser v. Ramsey, 125 F.Supp.2d 1, 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 15252, 11 AD Cases (BNA) 280 (D.D.C.). {N/R}
     A former employee, in a disability discrimination lawsuit may not make contradictory statements about his ability to work, in an application for a disability pension. Lee v. City of Salem, #00-1134, 2001 U.S. App. 17119 (7th Cir.). {N/R}
     The fact that a police officer was unsuccessful in litigating a wrongful termination claim does not prevent him, under collateral estoppel, from pursuing a federal disability discrimination claim. Grant v. Anchorage Police Dept., #S-8844, 20 P.3d 553, 2001 Alas. Lexis 28. {N/R}
     A disabled worker who sues her employer under Title I of the ADA (employment section) for denying a handicapped parking spot cannot also raise a claim under Title III (public accommodation section). DeWyer v. Temple Univ., #00-CV-1665, 2001 U.S. Dist. Lexis 1141, 11 AD Cases (BNA) 800 (Unpub. E.D.Pa.). {N/R}
     Federal court dismisses an ADA claim for repetitive motion injuries, because a former city typist simultaneously claimed to be (a) disabled, for the purpose of collecting social security disability benefits, and (b) qualified for continued employment with the city. Lorde v. City of Philadelphia, #98-5267, 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 17196 (Unpub. E.D. Pa.). {N/R}
     Management may have violated the ADA when it required a fitness-for-duty examination of a police lab worker with liver illness. She was removed from administrative leave while awaiting her examination and put back to work before the examination was conducted and the results were known. Campbell v. Prince George's Co., Md., 2001 U.S. Dist. Lexis 211, 11 AD Cases (BNA) 907 (Unpub. D.Md.). {N/R}
     Supreme Court denies review to an appellate court holding that rejected the ADA claim of a state trooper who was not promoted, after he applied for disability benefits. Motley v. N.J. State Police, 196 F.3d 160, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 28122, 9 AD Cases (BNA) 1505 (3rd Cir.); cert.den. 99-1395, 2000 U.S. Lexis 2881 (4/24/2000). [2000 FP 89]
     A disabled former firefighter was not regarded as handicapped because he was unable to perform as a firefighter. Shipley v. City of University City, 195 F.3d 1020, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 30091, 9 AD Cases (BNA) 1775 (8th Cir.). {N/R}
     The ADEA did not apply to a Chinese citizen who applied for job at American employer's China offices, as the law applies only to non-American citizens who work in the U.S. Hu v. Skadden Arps, 76 F.Supp.2d 476, 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 18737, 81 FEP Cases (BNA) 777 (S.D.N.Y.). {N/R}
     An employee suffering from depression is not disabled under the ADA, because her anti-depressant medications control the mental condition. Robb v. Horizon, 66 F.Supp.2d 913, 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 14266, 9 AD Cases (BNA) 1365 (C.D.Ill. 1999). {N/R}
     Former state trooper who is totally disabled loses an ADA claim that he was denied a promotion based on his disability; being a qualified individual is inconsistent with being totally disabled, even with different standards. Motley v. N.J. State Police, 196 F.3d 160, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 28122, 9 AD Cases (BNA) 1505 (3rd Cir. 1999). {N/R}
     Former police officer's perceived impairment that he is mentally ill did not substantially limit the major life activity of working, and only affected a limited range of jobs in which he must carry gun and engage in confrontational situations with citizens. Garner v. Gwinnett C., 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 6370, 9 AD Cases (BNA) 1596 (N.D.Ga. 1999). {N/R}
     Denver settles a suit with the Justice Dept. that, for the first time, allows disabled police officers to be reassigned to vacant civilian positions. The city also will pay $1,500,000 in back pay claims filed by 11 former police officers. Davoll v. Denver, #96-K-370, stlmt. rptd. at 38 (1870) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 825. Previously, the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld a $800,000 verdict to 3 ex-police officers who sued the city under the ADA, and also cleared the way for the Dept. of Justice to pursue damages on behalf of 13 other police officers. Davoll v. Webb, 194 F.3d 1116, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 26827 (10th Cir.); prior decis. at 49 F. Supp. 2d 1233; 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 8689 and 968 F.Supp. 549, 1997 U.S. Dist. Lexis 10020 (D. Colo.). {N/R}
     Supervisor was not personally liable under ADA for the employer's failure to accommodate an employee's disability, even though an "employer" under the ADA. Alberte v. Anew Health Care Services, 2000 WI 7, 232 Wis.2d 587, 605 N.W.2d 515, 2000 Wisc. Lexis 10, 10 AD Cases (BNA) 332 (Wis.). {N/R}
     Sheriff's employee who was not returned to work after she suffered a stroke because the sheriff believed her to be mentally impaired, was regarded as disabled for purposes of the ADA. Chadwick v. Layrisson, 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 14228, 10 AD Cases (BNA) 669 (E.D. La.). {N/R}
     Federal appeals court rejects a failure to promote claim brought by a “recovering” alcoholic who was chronically tardy and absent from work. Conley v. Vil. of Bedford Park, #99-2659, 215 F.3d 703, 10 AD Cases (BNA) 1076, 2000 U.S. App. Lexis 11959 (7th Cir.). {N/R}
     Supreme Court rejects EEO Guidance on medication and prosthetic devices; if a person use measures “to correct for, or mitigate, a physical or mental impairment, the effects of those measures -- both positive and negative -- must be taken into account when judging whether that person is substantially limited in a major life activity and thus disabled under the Act.” Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc. 119 S.Ct. 2139, 9 AD Cases 673, 1999 U.S. Lexis 4371. [1999 FP 126-7]
     City not required, as a W.C. benefit, to provide a new van for a police officer who was shot and permanently crippled. Guntersville (City of) v. Bishop, 728 So.2d 611 (Ala. 1998). Note: states which have required the purchase of a vehicle are AZ, FL, ME, MS and IA; those which have rejected this claim are CO, MD, NY, NC, PA and SC. ND and WV require reimbursement for the price difference between a regular auto and a wheelchair accessible van. [1999 FP 142]
     Persons who file discrimination complaints are protected against employer retaliation even if they are subsequently determined to be not disabled. Second Circuit also holds that the proper test for disability is whether the condition affects one's ability to perform a class or range of jobs; the fact a claimant is currently employed in some occupation is not proof he/she is not disabled. Mondzelewski v. Pathmark, #97-7475, 162 F.3d 778, 1998 U.S. App. Lexis 31775 (3rd Cir.). [1999 FP 57-8]
     Divided 10th Circuit panel holds that a rejected applicant can sue because the employer asked pre-offer medical questions, even though he was not hired because of a lack of qualifications. Griffin v. Steeltek, 160 F.3d 591, 1998 U.S. App. Lexis 27682, 8 AD Cases (BNA) 1249 (10th Cir.). [1999 FP 24]
     Federal appeals court dismisses a suit by a police officer who refused to state his HIV status during a department wide tuberculosis testing procedure; he claimed that the disclosure and TB test violated the ADA. Watson v. Miami Beach, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 10976, 177 F.3d 932, 9 AD Cases 760 (11th Cir.). {N/R}
     A plaintiff who complains a prospective employer improperly asked medical questions must, in the 5th Circuit, demonstrate also that he/she has suffered an injury because of the impermissible questions. Armstrong v. Turner, 141 F.2d 554 (5th Cir 1998). {N/R}
     Federal appeals court rejects using the ADA to litigate use of force or arrest claims involving disabled individuals. Gohier v. Enright, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 18170, 186 F.3d 1216, 9 AD Cases (BNA) 1131 (10th Cir.). [1999 FP 167-8]
     Fact that a police officer was a recovering alcoholic does not excuse the fact he lost his weapon while sleeping on a subway train. Brennan v. NYC Police Dept., #97-7779, 1998 U.S. App. Lexis 1923 (Unpub. 2nd Cir.). {N/R}
     US Supreme Court holds that the receipt of social security disability benefits does not bar ADA claims. Cleveland v. Policy Mgmt. Sys. Corp., 119 S. Also see Fredenburg v. Contra Costa Co., 172 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 1999), Johnson v. Oregon, 141 F.3d 1361 (9th Cir. 1998), LaBonte v. Hutchins, 678 N.E.2d 853 (Mass. 1997), and Swanks v. Wash. MTA, 116 F.3d 582 (D.C. Cir. 1997). {N/R}Ct. 1597 (1999). {N/R}
     Law review article: “The determination of disability under the ADA: Should mitigating factors such as medications be considered?” 35 Idaho Law Review 265 (1999). {N/R}
     Law review article: The practical impossibility of considering the effect of mitigating measures under the ADA. 26 Fordham Urban Journal 1267 (1999). {N/R}
     Sixth Circuit recognizes a hostile environment claim under the ADA. Keever v. City of Middletown, 145 F.3d 809, 1998 U.S. App. Lexis 10705, 1998 WL 271190 (6th Cir.). {N/R}
     First Circuit holds that the question of whether a person is disabled must be decided without reference as to whether the condition is controlled by medication. Arnold v. U.P.S., 136 F.3d 854, 1998 U.S. App. Lexis 2952, 7 AD Cases (BNA) 1489, 1998 WL 63505 (1st Cir.). [1998 FP 89]
     Sixth Circuit holds that a person who uses medication to control a physical or medical condition is not "disabled" under the ADA. Gilday v. Mecosta Co, 124 F.3d 760, 1997 U.S. App. Lexis 33306, 7 AD Cases (BNA) 348 (6th Cir.). [1998 FP 23]
     Federal court rejects ADA suit by lieutenant who engaged in misconduct while under the influence of liquor. Adamczyk v. Chief, Balt. Co. P.D., 1997 U.S.Dist. Lexis 853, 952 F.Supp 258 (D.Md). [1997 FP 89]
     Federal appeals court rejects claim that sheriff perceived the plaintiff deputy to have a disability; it was a personality dispute, even though sheriff had ordered a number of psychological evaluations. Stewart v. Co. of Brown, 5 AD Cases (BNA) 1018 (7th Cir. 1996). {N/R}
     Federal court in Chicago rejects the attempt of the EEOC to extend the "direct threat" exception to the ADA to the disabled person him/herself. The "direct threat" must be to others. Kohnke v. Delta Airlines, 932 F.Supp. 1110 (N.D.Ill. 1996). {N/R}
     Previously rejected officers, who were hired after ADA was enacted, are not entitled to back pay under an Equal Protection claim. Cook v. N.O.P.D., 659 So.2d 530 (La.App. 1995). [1996 FP 57-8]
     Federal appeals court affirms back pay and reinstatement awards of woman firefighter who was terminated for concealing her prior foot surgery on her employment application. Jury found the omission was not a serious medical problem and that fire dept. discriminated against her because of her fall from a firetruck and a back injury. Thomlinson v. Omaha, 63 F.3d 786 (8th Cir. 1995). {N/R}
     EEOC issues replacement guidance for the processing of disability discrimination complaints, filed by rejected job applicants. EEOC: Enforcement Guidance on Pre-Employment Inquiries Under the A.D.A., FEP Manual (BNA) 405:7191-7202 (Oct. 10, 1995); BNA FEPM Doc. #783. [1996 FP 6-7]
     Federal Court holds that there is no individual liability under the ADA. Hardwick v. Curtis, 896 F.Supp. 1037 (D.Ore. 1995). {N/R}
     A clause in an employment contract, which required that that all disability discrimination claims against the employment be brought within six months, was unenforceable. Scott v. Guardsmark Security, 874 F.Supp. 117, 1995 U.S. Dist. Lexis 926, 4 AD Cases (BNA) 398 (D.S.C.). {N/R}
     Disabled workers cannot be required to comply with a work rule which requires employees to give advance notice when they use paid vacation days for sick leave. Earlier, the court refused to dismiss the ADA claim of an employee who was terminated for absences related to his migraine headaches. Dutton v. Johnson County, 868 F.Supp. 1260 and at 859 F.Supp. 498, 3 AD Cases (BNA) 808 (D.Kan. 1994). {N/R}
     Federal appeals court in Chicago concludes that ADA liability affects employers, not individuals; $250,000 punitive damage award against the manager is reversed. EEOC v. AIC Security Inv. Ltd., 55 F.3d 1276, 1995 U.S.App. Lexis 12139 (7th Cir.). [1995 FP 135-6]
     ADA does not permit supervisory employees to be held personally liable for discrimination. Haltek v. Vil. of Park Forest, 864 F.Supp. 802 (N.D.Ill. 1994). {N/R}
     Workers compensation laws do not prevent a suit for damages by disabled workers against an employer for ADA violations. Wood v. Alameda Co., 875 F.Supp. 659, 4 AD Cases 43 (N.D.Cal. 1995). {N/R}
     Security officer who failed to obey a direct order could be terminated for insubordination; she was not terminated because of her dyslexia. Schartle v. Motorola, 4 AD Cases (BNA) 21; 1994 U.S.Dist. Lexis 6241 & 8587 (N. D. Ill). {N/R}
     Federal court dismisses a disabilities discrimination suit because the employee failed to file a grievance under the bargaining agreement, which would have led to binding arbitration. Austin v. Owens-Brockway, 844 F.Supp. 1103 (W.D.Va. 1994). [1995 FP 73]
     Federal court holds a public employee pension fund is liable under the ADA if it denies coverage to firefighters or police officers who are likely to become disabled. U.S. v. State of Illinois, 1994 U.S.Dist. Lexis 12890 (N.D.Ill.). [1995 FP 40]
     Civil Rights Act of 1991 is not retroactive in affording remedies under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Chenault v. U.S. Postal Service, 37 F.3d 535 (9th Cir. 1994). {N/R}
     Federal court concludes ADA claim is barred because plaintiff failed to submit to the arbitration procedures required under the coll. brg. agmt. Austin v. Owens-Brockway Glass Cont. Inc., 844 F.Supp. 1103 (W.D.Va. 1994). Result questioned in Block v. Art Iron Inc., 3 AD Cases (BNA) 1361 (N.D.Ind. 1994), Schmidt v. Safeway, 3 AD Cases (BNA) 1141 (D.Ore. 1994) and Bruton v. SEPTA, 3 AD Cases (BNA) 1170 (W.D. Pa. 1994). {N/R}
     Federal court dismisses a disabilities discrimination suit of a police officer who was denied admission into pension fund and who brought a suit under the ADA. Rodriguez v. City of Aurora, 887 F.Supp. 162 (N.D.Ill. 1995). {N/R}
     Arbitrator upholds termination of correctional officer for his failure to obtain state certification due to an inability to perform sit-ups. His inability was not linked to an identifiable disability. Merrimack Co. and State Emplees. Assn., 102 LA (BNA) 1096 (McCausland, 1994). [1995 FP 5]
     EEOC publishes "Enforcement Guidance on Pre-Employment Inquiries Under the A.D.A." Employers may create post-offer hiring pools. EEOC: Enforcement Guidance on Pre-Employment Inquiries Under the A.D.A., FEP Manual (BNA) 405:7193-7218 (#748, 1994). [1994 FP 134-7]
     ADA does not provide a remedy for actions taken before Jan. 26, 1992. A former police detective's claim that in 1990 he was decommissioned because of a back injury is not actionable. O'Bryant v. City of Midland, 3 AD Cases (BNA) 126 (W.D.Tex. 1993); affirmed, 9 F.3d 421 (5th Cir. 1993). {N/R}
     Federal appeals court concludes that victims of Rehabilitation Act discrimination are entitled to a trial by jury on all damage claims. Pandazides v. Virginia Bd. of Ed., 13 F.3d 823 (4th Cir. 1994). [1994 FP 92]
     Federal court in Wisconsin holds that public employees may immediately sue for A.D.A. discrimination. It is unnecessary to file a complaint with the EEOC before commencing litigation. Peterson v. Univ. of Wis. Bd. of Regents, 818 F.Supp. 1276 (W.D.Wis. 1993). [1994 FP 8]
     Arizona rules disability laws also protect formerly ill persons who have been cured. Burris v. Arizona, 31 (1533) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 1274, 2 AD Cases (BNA) 1251 (Ariz.App. 1993). [1994 FP 26]
     Jury could reasonably have found that woman trainee-firefighter's stature, stamina and potential for future injury did not constitute physical impairments that would have prevented her from performing her job, but her supervisor discharged her because he regarded them as such. Winnett v. City of Portland, 4 AD Cases (BNA) 825 (Ore.App. 1993). {N/R}
     Under A.D.A., federal appeals court strikes down a FAA blanket prohibition against relicensing private pilots who take lithium, a medication for a bipolar mood disorder. Bullwinkel v. F.A.A., 23 F.3d 167 (7th Cir. 1994). {N/R}
     Model Policy: "Americans with Disabilities Act," 18 pp. Police Executive Research Forum, 2300 M St. N.W. Ste. 910, Wash. DC 20037 (202) 466-7820. Prepared under a Dept. of Justice grant. [1993 FP 78]
     Federal court in NY rules that disabled persons may sue under a civil rights conspiracy statute [1993 FP 42 U.S. Code 1985] and need not litigate under the A.D.A. Trautz v. Weisman, 61 LW 2614 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). [1993 FP 88]
     Hertfordshire, England, Police Constabulary issues its officers identity cards in Braille. Police Review (U.K.) 21 Feb. 1992 p. 336. [1992 FP 105-6]
     Treating bus drivers ineligible to drive because of handicaps differently from those ineligible to drive because of traffic violations is not unconstitutional. Dallas Transit System v. Mann, 750 S.W.2d 287 (Tex.App. 1988).
     Officer of U.S. Public Health Service can sue for handicap discrimination; military exception does not apply. Milbert v. Koop, 830 F.2d 354 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
     Federal appeals court upholds termination of disabled firefighter; federal handicap discrimination act not applicable because federal funds were not directly used by the fire dept. Foss v. City of Chicago, 640 F.Supp. 1088 affirmed, 817 F.2d 34 (7th Cir. 1987).
     Termination of employee who had surgery was physical disability discrimination when done without physical examination. State Div. of Human Rights v. S.A. Cook Factory, 518 N.Y.S.2d 483 (A.D. 1987).
     Failure of employer to have employees trained to help handicapped workers or to seek outside professional help can be discriminatory. AFGE L-51 v. Baker, 55 U.S.L.W. 2667 (N.D. Cal. 1987).
     Police officer could bring federal handicap discrimination complaint despite prior determination that department's refusal to promote him after failure of physical examination did not violate D.C. law. Daniels v. Barry, 659 F.Supp. 999 (D.D.C. 1987).
     Fired firefighter was not protected by federal statute prohibiting handicap discrimination when no federal funds were allocated to fire department. United States Department of Transportation v. Paralyzed Veterans of America, 106 S.Ct. 2705 (1986).
     Discharged AIDS victim public employee could bring suit under federal handicap laws; not necessary to exhaust state remedies. Shuttleworth v. Broward County, 41 FEP Cases (BNA) 406, 639 F.Supp. 654 (S.D. Fla. 1986).
     Federal funds need not go to police of fire dept. every year to raise protections of federal rehabilitation act. Henning v. Vil. of Mayfield Village, 610 F.Supp. 17 (N.D. Ohio, 1985).
     St. Louis County case finally ends; dept. could refuse to train disabled police officer. Simon v. St. Louis County, Mo. 735 F.2d 1082 (8th Cir. 1984).
     California appeals court resolves physical employment standards in favor of personnel board, overruling Fair Employment Commission. State Pers. Bd. v. Fair Employment and Housing Cmsn., 196 Cal.Rptr. 815 (App. 1983).
     Statute of limitations on handicap actions controls timing of complaint, not statute on civil service appeals. Knapp v. Monroe Co. Civ. Serv. Cmsn., 437 N.Y.S.2d 136 (A.D. 1980).
     Florida arbitrator reinstates Christian Scientist who refused to participate in a blood test. City of Clearwater and Florida State Lodge 10, F.O.P., 79-80 PBC ¶ 45,321 (Greene, 1980).
     City's order to named firefighters to take physicals ruled an improper change of working conditions. City of Allen Park and Allen Park Fire Fighters Assn., Local 1410, AAA Case. #54-39-0844-75 (Nov. 1975). [1976 (14) FP 8].
     Federal court in Philadelphia orders city to employ former drug addicts. Davis v. Bucher, 451 F.Supp. 791, 17 FEP Cases (BNA) 918 (E.D. Pa. 1978).
     See also: AIDS/HIV Discrimination; Alcohol Abuse; Contagious Diseases; Drug Abuse; Heart Problems; Obesity; Physical Fitness Tests & Standards (many cases); Smoking Rights/Restrictions; Visual Acuity Standards; and EEOC regulations at www.eeoc.gov/regs/

HANDICAP/ ABILITIES DISCRIMINATION
- APPLICANT/EMPLOYEE MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS

     Monthly Law Journal Article: Analysis of the ADA as it Pertains to Medical Examinations of Police Officers Applying for Special Assignments, by Dave Corey, Ph.D., ABPP, 2007 (7) AELE Mo. L.J. 501.
     Federal court grants a summary judgment for an employer in an ADA lawsuit where the worker, who claimed to have carpal tunnel syndrome, refused to be retested. Allen v. BMW Mfg. Co., #7:05-2450, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 24535 (D.S.C.).
     Federal court strikes down a N.Y. prison rule requiring employees to submit a doctor's diagnosis after each sick leave absence. Fountain v. N.Y. Corr. Serv., #99-CV-389, 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4100 (N.D.N.Y. 2002). [2002 FP Jun]
     EEOC issues new Enforcement Guidance on periodic medical examinations for public safety personnel. Disability-Related Inquiries and Medical Examinations of Employees Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA, EEOC Notice 915.002 (7/27/00). [2000 FP 154-5]
     Federal appeals court dismisses the claim of a rejected applicant, who had been administered a pre-employment psychological test prior to a conditional offer of employment. Bone v. City of Louisville, #99-5813, 2000 U.S. App. Lexis 14081(6th Cir.). [2000 FP 155]
     An employer did not violate the ADA by rejecting job applicants whose pre-employment tests revealed a proclivity of developing carpal tunnel syndrome. EEOC v. Woodbridge, 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 15140, 69 Law Week 1232 (W.D. Mo. 2000). [2000 FP 171]
     Florida sheriff is "permanently enjoined from conducting any further pre-employment psychological or physical medical examinations, as described and defined in the Americans with Disabilities Act, the EEOC's Regulations, and the guidance materials published by the EEOC." Federal court rejects the defense that psychological screening is a pre-offer nonmedical exam. Barnes v. Cochran, 944 F.Supp. 897, 1996 U.S. Dist. Lexis 12597, 5 AD Cases (BNA) 1685. {N/R}
     Applicant with a severe visual disability was entitled to take a two-day qualifying exam over a four day period. Extra time was a reasonable accommodation under the A.D.A. and an injunctive relief was granted. D'Amico v. N.Y. St. Bd. of Law Examiners, 813 F.Supp. 217 (W.D.N.Y. 1993). {N/R}
     Mandatory Exams: City of New London and IAFF L-1522, Conn. PERB Case #MPP-2794, Decis. #1307 (1975).
     Also see: Handicap/ Abilities Discr. - Psychiatric

HANDICAP/ ABILITIES DISCRIMINATION
     - ACCOMMODATION – IN GENERAL

     Federal appeals court sustains a judgment for a former state investigator, who suffered from asthma and sarcoidosis. Management had failed to accommodate her reasonable request to change offices to a more suitable environment that would lessen her symptoms. There was evidence that her cold office exacerbated the her illness. Benaugh v. Ohio Civil Rts. Cmsn., #07-3825, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 10985 (6th Cir.).
     In a selective treatment action brought by a disabled former NYPD officer, the trial court failed to allow sufficient discovery as to whether patrol duty constitutes an essential job function. The case was remanded. Price v. City of New York, #06-3481-cv, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 3133 (2nd Cir.).
     Where a police analyst claimed that management failed to accommodate his sleep apnea condition and constructively discharged him, the city was not required to offer an employee an accommodation that would have interfered with the seniority rights of other workers. Herr v. City of Chicago, #05C7145, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 21644 (N.D. Ill.).
     Federal court refuses to dismiss a constructive discharge claim where a newly diagnosed diabetic needed frequent breaks and the employer's restrictions created intolerable working conditions. Countryman v. Nordstrom, #05-2588, 18 AD Cases (BNA) 1661, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 1503 (D. Minn. 2007).
     Federal court finds that a police dept. policy abolishing permanent light-duty positions for disabled officers did not violate the ADA, even if officers were not individually assessed for suitable positions. Management's employment decisions were based on a reasonable physical criteria and applied on an individualized basis. Allen v. Hamm, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 6707, 17 AD Cases (BNA) 1206 (D. Md. 2006). {N/R}
     A dyslexic teacher who was unable to obtain an accommodation to take necessary qualification exam was not a qualified individual, because state law required the test as a prerequisite to obtaining a teaching certificate. Falchenberg v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 04-CV-7598, 375 F.Supp.2d 344, 2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 13106, 16 AD Cases (BNA) 1736 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). {N/R}
     Under the ADA an employer is not required to reassign existing workers to help a disabled employee perform his essential duties. Both parties have an obligation to assist in the search for an appropriate accommodation and a belief that management does not treat workers fairly will not relieve a disabled employee of an obligation to cooperate in an "interactive process." Collins v. U.S. Postal Service, #AT-0752-04-0309-I-1, 2005 MSPB Lexis --- (MSPB 2005) relying on 29 C.F.R.1630. {N/R}
     California appeals court affirms an award of $180,000 and $240,000 in legal fees for a municipal maintenance worker who was fired a year and a half after injuring his back. The plaintiff never made a request for accommodation. Kerry v. City of West Covina, #B171307, 2005 Cal. App. Unpub. Lexis 3392 (2d Dist. 2005). {N/R}
     Merit Systems Protection Board upholds a management decision to terminate an OSHA Information Specialist with heightened electromagnetic field sensitivity, because she needed to use a computer to perform the essential functions of her position. Hughes v. Dept. of Labor, #CB-7121-04-0020-V-1 (MSPB 2005). {N/R}
     Federal court refuses to order a test provider to lengthen the test period by 50% to accommodate an applicant with Attention Deficit Disorder. An inability to perform well on a standardized test does not substantially interfere with the major life activity of learning. Baer v. Natl. Bd. of Medical Examiners, #05-10724, 2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 7796, 2005 WL 1027289 (D. Mass. 2005). [2005 FP Jul]
     EEOC sustains the termination of a DEA employee for excessive tardiness. An agency is not required to accommodate employees with sleep disorders by allowing them to report to work whenever they are able. Kendall v. Ashcroft, #03A50006, 2005 EEOPUB Lexis 350 (2005). [2005 FP May]
     Third Circuit holds that a police sergeant, who for psychological reasons cannot be entrusted with a firearm, is entitled to a reasonable accommodation with a position that does not require him to be armed. The District Court failed to consider whether the plaintiff's inability to carry a firearm would prevent him from performing work in a "class of jobs." Williams v. Philadelphia Housing Auth. Police Dept., #03-1158, 380 F.3d 751, 15 AD Cases (BNA) 1607,2004 U.S. App. Lexis 18151 (3rd Cir. 2004). [2004 FP Nov]
     MSPB holds that under the Rehabilitation Act, a public employer is entitled to request additional medical information from a disabled employee and his or her physician, to determine what accommodation is necessary. If that information is not forthcoming, separation for medical reasons is proper. Madison v. Rumsfeld, EEOC Petition No. 03A40105, MSPB No. DA-0752-02-0095-I-2, 2004 EEOPUB Lexis 4377. {N/R}
     President Bush has signed an Executive Order directing federal agencies to address the safety and security needs of people with disabilities during emergencies, including earthquakes, tornadoes, fires, floods, hurricanes and acts of terrorism. The Dept. of Homeland Security has created an Interagency Council to oversee the implementation of new policies resulting from the Executive Order. {N/R}
     Federal appeals panel rejects a disabilities discrimination claim brought by a detention supervisor who was not promoted. She was off work due to an injury at the time, and the city had a rational policy of not promoting injured or ill candidates who had not returned to work with a medical fitness certificate. Kincaid v. City of Omaha, #03-3031, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 16355 (8th Cir. 2004). {N/R}
     The EEOC has ruled, in an advisory letter dated Apr. 29, 2004, that the ADA does not impose on employers a duty to dispose of used syringes of employees that must use them to treat medical conditions, such as diabetes. An employer also is not required to provide syringes used in the treatment of medical conditions because these are needed on and off the job, the EEOC said in another advisory letter dated Mar. 23, 2004. 42 (2059) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 474. {N/R}
     Appeals court declines to dismiss a suit brought by a Justice Dept. employee with depression who sought a transfer. There was no evidence that the transfer would cause an undue hardship and the employer failed to engage in an interactive process to explore whether some variant of the proposal was workable. Calero-Cerezo v. Dept. of Justice, #02-2643, 355 F.3d 6, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 452, 15 AD Cases (BNA) 129 (1st Cir. 2004). {N/R}
     A probationary candidate for correctional officer, who was disqualified because of knee injuries, was not entitled to reassignment to another position, because disability discrimination laws requires accommodation only to a position within the same civil service classification for which a person is a candidate. Hastings v. Dept. of Corr., #C041708, 2003 Cal. App. Lexis 1111 (3d App. Dist. 2003). {N/R}
     A court employee with "cluster headaches" who frequently had been given leave time over a period of years, was not entitled to an "indefinite leave," which is not a reasonable accommodation. Wood v. Green, #02-12971, 14 AD Cases (BNA) 103, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 4470 (11th Cir. 2003). {N/R}
     Federal appeals court holds that a city had no duty to accommodate, and could lawfully terminate a deputy marshal who, after an injury, was unable to hold a firearm in his right hand. Kaplan v. City of North Las Vegas, #02-16048, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 6221 (9th Cir. 2003). {N/R}
     Oregon appellate court holds that a corrections officer who takes a prescriptive anticoagulant drug, and who was advised to avoid contact with inmates because of a risk of serious internal bleeding, could be a "disabled person" under state law. Evans v. Multnomah County Sheriff's Office, #A112917, 184 Ore. App. 733, 57 P.3d 211, 2002 Ore. App. Lexis 1729, 13 AD Cases (BNA) 1256 (Or.App. 2002). {N/R}
     Third Circuit holds that a disabled EMT, asks for a transfer to a dispatching position, cannot be required him to watch for job openings and file formal applications for the posts. Shapiro v. Twp. of Lakewood, 292 F.3d 356, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 10302 (3rd Cir. 2002). {N/R}
     A state agency's removal of an ADA case, from state to federal court, constituted a waiver of its sovereign immunity for that case. Estes v. Wyoming, #00-8069, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 18324 (10th Cir. 2002). {N/R}
     Supreme Court upholds a EEOC Reg. allowing employers to reject disabled applicants where the job environment would be unusually hazardous for them. Chevron v. Echazabal, #00-1406, 2002 U.S. Lexis 4202 (2002). [2002 FP Aug]
     Supreme Court upholds the priority of seniority systems, whether imposed by management or required by a bargaining agreement. US Airways v. Barnett, #00-1250, 2002 U.S. Lexis 3034 (2002). [2002 FP Jun]
     Federal court awards compensatory damages, back and front pay, and attorney's fees to a sheriff's officer who was unable to work as a jailer after a heart attack, and was not told of a senior dispatcher's vacancy. Appeals court remands for further clarification.Bristol v. Bd. of Co. Cmsnrs., #00-1053, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 2937 (10th Cir.). [2002 FP May]
     Federal court rejects a reassignment demand from an asthmatic corrections officer. His condition did not impair the major life activities of breathing or working. Saunders v. Baltimore Co., #JFM-01-CV-1291, 163 F.Supp.2d 564, 2001 U.S. Dist. Lexis 14576 (D. Md.). [2002 FP Jan]
     Federal appeals court reinstates an ADA claim where a disabled employee sought leave to work at home. The employer allowed other employees in her job category to work at home, and should not have fired her for poor attendance without trying at-home employment. Humphrey v. Memorial Hosp. Assn., #98-15404, 239 F.3d 1128, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 2099, 11 AD Cases (BNA) 765 (9th Cir. 3-23-01). [2001 FP 55-6]
     The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules that employers can't refuse permission to work even if the job duties pose a “direct threat” to an employee's health and safety. Echazabel v. Chevron, #98-55551, 213 F.3d 1098, 10 AD Cases (BNA) 961, 2000 U.S. App. Lexis 11399. [2000 FP 138-9]
     Federal panel upholds an arbitrator's decision not to accommodate a diabetic worker by assigning him permanently to the day shift. Seniority systems prevail over disability legislation. Veterans Aff. Med. Ctr. and AFGE L-2610, #0-AR-3090, 1999 FLRA Lexis 224, 55 FLRA No. 192. [2000 FP 89]
     Officer recovers just under $1 million. She was forced to continue working near another officer who allegedly raped her. Wimmer v. Stiers, #96-N-1547, 38 (1849) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 216 (D. Colo.). [2000 FP 55]
     EEOC adopts the position that a disabled person has job assignment priority over a more-qualified minority. U.S. Chamber of Commerce (In Re), 68 Law Week 2472, 38 (1849) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 220 (Ltr. Opin. 1-31-2000). [2000 FP 55]
     A dyslexic Justice Dept. computer operator who alleged that she did not receive the training necessary to do her job or secure promotions failed to prove a violation of the Rehabilitation Act. Her positive performance evaluations undercut the claim that she needed accommodation. Bissell v. Reno, #AMD 97-1274, 74 F.Supp.2d 521, 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 18864 (D. Md. 1999). {N/R}
     The reasonable accommodation requirement under the NJ disabilities law does not require an employer to tolerate excessive absenteeism. Svarnas v. AT&T, 326 N.J. Super. 59, 740 A.2d 662, 1999 N.J. Super. Lexis 368, 9 AD Cases (BNA) 1777 (NJ App. 1999). {N/R}
     A police officer with sleep apnea who was given a permanent day shift was lawfully ordered to give up a second job he worked one evening a week. Silk v. Chicago, # 98-1155, 194 F.3d 788, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 25208, 9 AD Cases (BNA) 1409 (7th Cir. 1999). {N/R}
     Unfettered ability to leave work at any time is not a reasonable accommodation if reliable and predictable attendance is required; the employer did not have to tolerate a worker with sinusitis who left work whenever he experienced wheezing. Buckles v. First Data, 176 F.3d 1098 (8th Cir. 1999). {N/R}
     The ADA does not require an employer to bump an employee from a position to create a vacancy regardless of seniority. Pond v. Michelin North America, 183 F.3d 592 (7th Cir. 1999). {N/R}
     Tenth Circuit, in an en banc decision, mandates specific actions to be taken by employers to accommodate a disabled employee. Smith v. Midland, #96-3018, 180 F.3d 1154, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 13185, 9 AD Cases (BNA) 738 (10th Cir., en banc). [1999 FP 154-5]
     EEOC's 1999 Enforcement Guidance on accommodation minimizes unexcused absences of disabled workers. EEOC also requires employers and union to negotiate with each other if a requested accommodation violates a bargaining agreement. [1999 FP 155]
     Federal appeals court concludes that a public employer had no duty to cut a key employee's work week from 50-70 to 40 hours per week, to accommodate her heart problems. Tardie v. Rehab. Hosp. of R.I, #98-1748, 168 F.3d 538, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 2877, 9 AD Cases (BNA) 155 (1st Cir.). [1999 FP 104-5]
     Sixth Circuit rejects a liability claim against a supervisor for engaging in retaliatory action. There can be no individual liability under Title VII, the ADA, the ADEA or the Rehabilitation Act. Hiler v. Brown, #98-5014, 177 F.3d 542, 9 AD Cases 628, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 9625 (6th Cir.). [1999 FP 105]
     Seventh Circuit holds that the ADA does not require an employer to allow a more senior employee to "bump" a coworker from an occupied position. Pond v. Michelin, # 98-4247, 183 F.3d 592, 9 AD Cases 795, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 14223 (7th Cir.). [1999 FP 133-4]
     EEOC issues 70 pages of guidance on the obligations of employers to “reasonably accommodate” disabled individuals in the workplace. Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship under the ADA, EEOC Enforcement Guidance (1999). Full text: www.eeoc.gov/docs/accommodation/html [1999 FP 74]
     The ADA requires reassignment to a vacant position when a disabled employee is qualified for that position, Gile v. United Airlines, 95 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 1996). {N/R}
     Employer allowed a less-senior worker who suffered from depression to take a place on the day shift. An arbitrator reversed, noting that nothing in the ADA requires an employer to sacrifice other workers’ rights as part of its effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. Cont., Med. and Wel. Inc., 110 LA (BNA) 674 (Klein, 1998). {N/R}
     Federal appeals court confirms that federal agencies have an affirmative duty to transfer a disabled employee to another “funded vacant position,” per 1992 amendments to the Rehabilitation Act. Woodman v. Runyon, 132 F.3d 1330, 1997 U.S. App. Lexis 36165 (10th Cir.). [1998 FP 71-2]
     Federal appeals court requires an employer to offer parttime work for an employee who suffered a mental breakdown. ADA and other laws supersede the bargaining agreement. Ralph v. Lucent Technologies 135 F.3d 166, 1998 U.S. App. Lexis 1475, 7 AD Cases (BNA) 1345 (1st Cir.). [1998 FP 72]
     Third Circuit follows a 7th Circuit case and adopts a per se rule that seniority rights, contained in a bargaining agreements, supersede the ADA. Kralik v. Durbin, #97-3089,-3106, 1997 U.S. App. Lexis 34829 (3d Cir.). See also Eckles v. Con. Rail, 94 F.3d 1041, 1996 U.S.App. Lexis 20403 (7th Cir.); cert.den. 117 S.Ct. 1318 (1997). [1998 FP 22]
     Federal appeals court rejects accommodation of a disabled worker in violation of seniority. “Even minor infringements on other employees” seniority rights impose unreasonable burdens on employers who, by reason of those infringements, must face the consequences of violating the collective bargaining agreement." Kralik v. Durbin, 7 AD Cases 1040 (3rd Cir. 1997). {N/R}
     Federal court rejects ADA claim of a disabled corrections officer who was unable to use a firearm. Accommodating his disability posed a threat to other officers and the public. Johnson v. Maryland, 940 F.Supp. 873 (D.Md. 1996). [1997 FP 120]
     Corrections officer with back pain wins $130,000 punitive and $128,803 compensatory damages. Warden refused to allow him to work as an officer, and reassigned him as a lower-paid mail room clerk. McIntyre v. Michigan, 1996 U.S.Dist. Lexis 19694 [partial summary judgment]; 35 (1701) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 175 [verdict summary] (W.D.Mich. 1996). [1997 FP 88-9]
     Federal appeals court reaffirms a holding that a police officer's disability could not be accommodated; due to an injury, he was unable to securely aim and fire a gun, wield batons or use "sufficient force" with his left hand. Lee v. City of Aurora, #95-1109, 1996 U.S. App. Lexis 1601 (Unpub. 10th Cir.); cert. den. 1997 U.S. Lexis 3511. {N/R}
     Police dept. had duty to accommodate officer's dyslexia, including his use of a laptop computer. DeLeo v. Stamford,919 F.Supp. 70, 1995 U.S.Dist. Lexis 11564, 4 AD Cases (BNA) 427, 9 A.D.D. 632 (D.Conn.). [1996 FP 87]
     "Generally, an employer is not required to accommodate a disability by allowing the disabled worker to work, by himself, without supervision at home." Van Zande v. Wis. Dept. Admin., 44 F.3d 538 (7th Cir. 1995). See, however, Langon v. H.H.S., 959 F.2d 1053 (D.C.Cir. 1992) and Carr v. Reno, 23 F.3d 525 (D.C.Cir. 1994). {N/R}
     Whether an employer can reasonably accommodate an often absent worker and whether the requested accommodation creates an “undue hardship” are questions for the jury, not the court. Stradley v. LaFourche, 869 F.Supp. 442 (E.D.La. 1994). {N/R}
     There is no “per se” rule under the ADA that reassignment of an employee in violation of the CBA or seniority system is an unreasonable accommodation. The conflict is simply another factor to weigh. Emrick v. Libbey-Owens-Ford, 875 F.Supp. 93 (E.D. Tex.). {N/R}
     Police dept. had no duty to accommodate an officer whose on-duty ankle injuries impaired his ability to perform his duties. Molloy v. City of Bellevue, 859 P.2d 613 (Wash.App. 1993). {N/R}
     Michigan arbitrator upholds a unilateral transfer of a police lieutenant to the day shift to accommodate his illness, despite the union's objection that shift assignments are strictly controlled by a seniority clause in the collectively bargained agreement. Dearborn Heights and D.H P.S.A., AAA Case #54-39-0203-93, 101 LA (BNA) 809 (Kanner, 1993). [1994 FP 24-25]
     See article, Stahlhut, "Playing the trump card: may an employer refuse to reasonably accommodate under the ADA by claiming a collective bargaining obligation?," 9 (1) Labor Lawyer (ABA) 71 (1993).
     County reasonably accommodated handicapped employee by keeping him on payroll for six months and then placed him on leave with pay. Cerro Gordo Cty. Care Fac. v. Civ. R. Com'n, 401 N.W.2d 192 (Iowa, 1987).
     Right of handicapped veteran postal worker to accommodation does not prevail over a bona fide seniority system. Hurst v. United States Postal Service, 653 F.Supp. 259 (N.D. Ga. 1986).
     Blind employee provided with readers, special equipment and office space was reasonably accommodated; no right to "full time reader of his choice." Carter v. Bennett, 651 F.Supp. 1299 (D.D.C. 1987).

HANDICAP/ ABILITIES DISCRIMINATION
     - CONSTITUTIONALITY / WAIVER

     A disability discrimination suit against a state agency is barred under the 11th Amendment. Patterson v. Penna. Inspector General, #06-4233, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 14101 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
     Third Circuit holds that Pennsylvania county courts are "state entities" even though they are locally funded and thus are immune under the 11th Amendment from disability discrimination lawsuits filed by probation officers. Benn v. First Jud. Dist., #01-3769, 426 F.3d 233, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 21959, 17 AD Cases (BNA) 228 (3rd Cir 2005). {N/R}
     Eighth Circuit, relying on Tennessee v. Lane, 124 S.Ct. 1978 (2004)(access to courthouses) and Miller v. King, 384 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2004)(claims by disabled prison inmates) concludes that Title II of the ADA cannot constitutionally be applied to state governments, except where the barriers impede a right of access to the courts. Bill M. v. Nebraska Dept. of Health, #04-3263, 408 F.3d 1096, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 9727 (8th Cir. 2005). {N/R}
     State officials are not immune under the Eleventh Amendment from ADA litigation seeking only prospective (injunctive) relief. McCarthy v. Hawkins, #03-50608, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 16538 (5th Cir. 2004). {N/R}
     The Supreme Court rule 5-4 that states are not immune under Title II (access and barriers provisions) from suits by disabled citizens who seek entry into courthouses and other public facilities. State of Tennessee v. Lane, #02-1667, 124 S.Ct. 1978, 2004 U.S. Lexis 3386 (2004). {N/R}
     Title II of the ADA (access and barriers provisions) cannot be constitutionally applied to state agencies, even under the Commerce Clause. Klinger v. Dir. Dept. of Rev., # 03-2345, 366 F.3d 614, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 8615 (8th Cir. 2004) Decided shortly before Tenn. v. Lane, above. {N/R}
     The Eleventh Amendment does not prevent the United States from suing a state under the ADA. U.S. v. Miss. Dept. of Public Safety, #02-60048, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 1965, 13 AD Cases (BNA) 1706 (5th Cir. 2003). {N/R}
     A state-controlled local police board is not a state office for 11th Amendment immunity purposes. Darby v. Bratch, #01-2006, 287 F.3d 673, 7 WH Cases2d 1252, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 6679 (8th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     State agencies waive Eleventh Amendment immunity with regard to Rehabilitation Act claims when they accept federal funds. Nihiser v. Ohio E.P.A., #97-3933, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 21694, 2001 FED App. 0362P (6th Cir.). {N/R}
     Supreme Court rules, 5-to-4, that state workers cannot sue their employers under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Board of Tr. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, #99-1240, 531 U.S. 356, 121 S.Ct. 955, 2001 U.S. Lexis 1700. [2001 FP 39-40] Also in agreement, Hermes v. Nebraska (8th Cir. 2000), cert. den. 69 L.W. 3645 (2001). {N/R}
     Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit for money damages covers ADA claims against Puerto Rico's territorial police dept. Acevedo-Lopez v. Police Dept. of P.R., #00-1093, 247 F.3d 26, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 7592, 11 AD Cases (BNA) 1367 (1st Cir.). {N/R}
     Native American tribe that terminated a tribal police officer with epileptic seizures was immune from suit under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Acceptance of federal funds for community projects was not an express waiver of immunity. Sanderlin v. Seminole Tribe of Florida, #00-10312, 243 F.3d 1282, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 3469, 11 AD Cases (BNA) 976 (11th Cir.). {N/R}
     A county fire department is subject to suit in federal court under Title I of ADA, where the department is not arm of state government and, sovereign immunity under the 11th Amendment does not apply. Parker v. Anne Arundel Co., Md., #00-850, 2001 U.S. Dist. Lexis 3462, 11 AD Cases (BNA) 1053 (D.Md. 2001). {N/R}
     State agencies are not immune from employees' claims under ADA. Garrett v. Univ. of Alabama, 193 F.3d 1214, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 26846, 9 AD Cases (BNA) 1635 (11th Cir. 1999). {N/R}
     Former state employees could not recover on their claim that they were discharged in violation of ADA, since the Congress lacked the power to abrogate state immunity under the 11th Amendment. DeBose v. Nebraska, 9 AD Cases (BNA) 1295, 207 F.3d 1020, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 18395; reh. en banc den. 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 22312 (8th Cir. 1999). {N/R}
     The ADA was properly extended by the Congress to the states, and waived state immunity under the 11th Amendment. Dare v. California, 191 F.3d 1167, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 22351, 9 AD Cases 1239 (9th Cir. 1999). {N/R}
     The Seventh Circuit recognizes but declines to address a split over whether Title II of the ADA applies to public employers. Staats v. Co. of Sawyer, 220 F.3d 511 (7th Cir. 2000). The 11th Circuit holds that it applies; the 6th, 9th and 10th Circuits disagree. {N/R}
     In enacting the ADA, Congress has abrogated Eleventh Amendment state immunity; U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the ADEA did not validly abrogate states' Eleventh Amendment immunity. Cisneros v. Wilson, 226 F.3d 1113, 2000 U.S. App. Lexis 22884, 10 AD Cases (BNA) 1668 (10th Cir. 2000). {N/R}
     Congress did not validly abrogate states' immunity under Eleventh Amendment to U.S. Constitution when it enacted Title II of ADA, and exceeded its authority under Section 5 of 14th Amendment when it applied it to states. Popovich v. Cuyahoga Co., 227 F.3d 627, 2000 U.S. App. Lexis 23388, 2000 FED App. 0330P, 10 AD Cases (BNA) 1784 (6th Cir. 2000). {N/R}
     11th Circuit upholds the constitutionality of ADA claims against a state. Kimel v. Fla. Regents; Dickson v. Fla. Corrections; MacPherson v. Univ. Montevallo, 139 F.3d 1426, 1998 U.S. App. Lexis 8338, 76 FEP Cases (BNA) 1201 (11th Cir. 1998). [1998 FP 83]
     Congress validly abrogated state immunity under the 11th Amendment under Sec. 5 of the 14 Amendment when it enacted the ADA. Martin v. Kansas, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 19707, 9 AD Cases (BNA) 1075 (10th Cir.). {N/R}
     The Congress properly abrogated the sovereign immunity of the several states in enacting the ADA. Martin v. Kansas, #972025-JWL, 7 AD Cases (BNA) 973 (D.Kan. 1997). {N/R}

HANDICAP/ ABILITIES DISCRIMINATION - DAMAGES
     Federal court in Florida upholds a damages claim for corrections officer who alleged that she was fired in retaliation for making disabilities discrimination complaints. Rumler v. Fla. Dept. of Corrections, #2:06-cv-522, Pacer Doc. #59 (M.D. Fla.).
     Federal jury awards $3 million to a blind woman who was fired from her job as director of Pennsylvania's agency for the blind and visually impaired. Boone v. Penn. Office of Vocational Rehab., 1:04-cv-00588 (M.D. Pa. verdict, 2005). {N/R}
     Jury awards former police officer over $1 million for disability discrimination. Britton v. Mill Creek, #96-2-02085-9, 37 (1837) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 1484, Super. Ct. Snohomish Co. Wash. (10/26/99). [2000 FP 25]
     Missouri city pays $500,000 to settle a former fire captain's ADA claim, based on a back injury. A jury had awarded him $670,000. Norwood v. City of Independence, #96-1166-CV-W-4, 37 (1840) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 1563 (W.D. Mo. 1999). {N/R}
     Missouri city pays $500,000 to settle a former fire captain's ADA claim, based on a back injury. A jury had awarded him $670,000. Norwood v. City of Independence, #96-1166-CV-W-4, 37 (1840) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 1563 (W.D. Mo. 1999). {N/R}
     US Supreme Court confirms that punitive damages may be awarded for Title VII violations. Kolstad v. Amer. Dental Ass'n, #98-208, 1999 WL 407481 (June 22, 1999). {N/R}
     N.Y. affirms a monetary judgment for emotional distress, awarded to a firefighter applicant who was improperly rejected because of a physical disability. Amount reduced because he did not seek medical treatment for his distress. Fulton (City of) v. N.Y. St. Div. Hum. Rts., 633 N.Y.S.2d 914 (A.D. 1995). [1996 FP 73-4]

HANDICAP/ ABILITIES DISCRIMINATION - INMATES/PRISONERS
     Federal appeals court reinstates a suit brought by a wheelchair-bound plaintiff with muscular dystrophy that sued officers for excessive force for "attempting to place him in the back seat of a police cruiser after he explained that his legs could not bend." St. John v. Hickey, #04-3388, 2005 FED App. 0268P, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 11736 (6th Cir. 2005). {N/R}
     Supreme Court holds that punitive damages are not a valid remedy in private suits against public entities under Title II of the ADA and §504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Case involved a disabled prisoner who was injured in a transport van. Barnes v. Gorman, #01-682, 122 S.Ct. 2097, 2002 U.S. Lexis 4421, 70 U.S.L.W. 4548 (2002). [2002 FP Sep]
     Federal appeals court finds that punitive damages are available for injuries sustained by a paraplegic prisoner who was transported in a van without wheelchair restraints. Jury awarded $1,034,817 in actual and $1,200,000 in punitive damages. Gorman v. Easley, #00-1029 and 1030, 257 F.3d 738, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 12827 (8th Cir.). [2001 FP 137-8]
     Private individuals may sue state officials for injunctive relief under Title I of the ADA. Gibson v. Arkansas Dept. of Corr., #01-1038, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 20315, 11 AD Cases (BNA) 1599 (8th Cir. 2001). {N/R}
     Federal circuits split on whether the ADA applies to state prisons and other state-owned facilities. Supreme Court side-stepped the issue in 1998. Muller v. Costello, 98-7491, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 18651 (2nd Cir.); Amos v. Maryland Dept. Pub. Safety & Corr., #96-7091, 178 F.3d 212 (4th Cir. 1999); Alsbrook v. Maumelle, Ark., #97-1825, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 16945, 184 F.3d 999, 9 AD Cases (BNA) 897 (8th Cir. en banc 1999). [1999 FP 156]
     Supreme Court declines to decide the constitutionality of the ADA as applied to state prisons and other facilities. State failed to raise that claim below. Penn. Dept. of Corr. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 188 S.Ct. 1952 (1998). {N/R}
     Federal appeals court holds that the accommodations requirements of the ADA apply to jail inmates and disabled persons under arrest. Police dept. did not have a wheelchair accessible prisoner van. Gorman v. Bartch, #97-4323, 152 F.3d 907, 1998 U.S. App. Lexis 20291, 8 AD Cases (BNA) 751, overturning 925 F.Supp. 653. (8th Cir.). [1998 FP 166]
     Connecticut court refuses to dismiss a suit brought by a paraplegic inmate, under the ADA, against a sheriff and others for transporting him in a van that was not wheelchair accessible. Davis v. Mak, 1997 WL 133410 (Conn. Super. 1997). [1998 FP 39]
     Federal court in N.Y. has refuses to dismiss a suit brought by a paraplegic inmate, under the ADA, against officers for transporting him in a van that was not wheelchair accessible. Candelaria v. Greifinger, 1997 U.S.Dist. Lexis 4616, 4617 & 16146 [3 opinions and orders] (N.D.N.Y.). {N/R}
     Ninth Circuit upholds inmate class action to impose the ADA on California state prisons. Eleventh Amendment no bar to the ADA. Clark v. Cal. Dept. of Corrections, 1997 U.S.App. Lexis 22623 (9th Cir.); Armstrong v. Wilson, 1997 U.S.App. Lexis 22622, 124 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir.). [1997 FP 152-3]
     ADA provisions that bar public agencies from denying services, programs or activities to qualified individuals applies to state prisoners. 7th Circuit applies the ADA to Indiana state prison inmates; suit by blind prisoner seeks damages and access to programs. Crawford v. Indiana DOC, 115 F.3d 481, 1997 U.S.App. Lexis 12673 (7th Cir.). [1997 FP 104]
     Federal judge applies the protections of the ADA to all California prison inmates. Compliance will cost an estimated $50 million. Armstrong v. Wilson, 942 F.Supp. 1252 (N.D.Cal. 1996); aff'd (see 124 F.3d 1019 above). [1997 FP 10]
     Attempt to apply the ADA to the Virginia prison system fails. Staples v. Va. Dept. of Corrections, 904 F.Supp. 487, 5 AD Cases (BNA) 1349, 1995 U.S.Dist. Lexis 19970 (E.D.Va.). See also Little v. Lycoming County, 912 F.Supp. 809, 5 AD Cases (BNA) 1359, 1996 U.S.Dist. Lexis 1757 (M.D.Pa.). [1997 FP 10-11]
     Tenth circuit holds the ADA does not apply to prison situations. White v. Colorado, 82 F.3d 364, 5 AD Cases (BNA) 1631, 1996 U.S.App. Lexis 9281 (10th Cir.). Note: see 9th and 7th Circuit cases above, holding the opposite. [1997 FP 11]
     Federal judge applies the protections of the ADA to California prison inmates compliance will cost $50 million. Armstrong v. Wilson, 1996 U.S.Dist. Lexis ***, 109 (184) L.A. Daily J. 1 (N.D.Cal.). Research Note: Other federal courts have recently come to the opposite viewpoint. An attempt to apply the ADA to the Virginia prison system failed in Staples v. Va. Dept. of Corrections, 904 F.Supp. 487, 5 AD Cases (BNA) 1349, 1995 U.S.Dist. Lexis 19970 (E.D.Va.). Similarly, an action against a county prison also failed in Little v. Lycoming County, 912 F.Supp. 809, 5 AD Cases (BNA) 1359, 1996 U.S.Dist. Lexis 1757 (M.D.Pa.).

HANDICAP/ ABILITIES DISCRIMINATION - LIGHT DUTY
     Arbitrator finds that management did not violate the bargaining agreement or disability laws by refusing to assign a firefighter with muscular dystrophy in an altered paramedic position as a trainer when he no longer could fulfill the active firefighting requirements. Orange County and IAFF L-2057, 124 LA (BNA) 150, AAA #32-390-00219-06 (Smith, 2007).
      Appeals court rejects an ADA claim that a police officer, who had frequent absences arising from prior injuries, was "disabled" under federal or state law. "The inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation on the major life activity of working." There were no permanent light duty positions, and the city lawfully terminated the officer for medical reasons. Epps v. City of Pine Lawn, #02-3064,2003 U.S. App. Lexis 25741(8th Cir. 2003). {N/R}
     Federal court rejects claim that a disabled detective was entitled to a permanent light duty position. The fact that he satisfactorily performed his duties in a wheelchair while his condition was under evaluation did not require management to make the assignment a permanent one. Doner v. City of Rockford, 2003 U.S. Dist. Lexis 1792, 2003 WL 262514 (N.D. Ill. 2003). [2003 FP Jun]
     Federal court affirms jury verdicts for three officers who were denied promotions because they were on light duty status. Each awarded over $94,000 in back pay and compensatory damages, plus weekly payments until promoted. Colwell v. Suffolk Co. Police Dept., 967 F.Supp. 1419 (E.D.N.Y. 1997). [1998 FP 102-3]
     Procedurally, police officers could not maintain a class action suit seeking permanent light duty status for injured employees, because the ADA requires an individualized determination, on a case-by-case basis, whether a person is disabled within meaning of the act. Davoll v. Webb, 4 AD Cases (BNA) 161, 160 F.R.D. 142 (D.Colo. 1995). [1995 FP 170]
     See also: Light Duty Assignments.

HANDICAP/ ABILITIES DISCRIMINATION - PSYCHIATRIC

     Rejecting an ADA claim, the Ninth Circuit holds that a former deputy sheriff's inability to interact with others was of limited severity, and was mitigated by anti-depressant medication for his PTSD. Magdaleno v. Washington Co., Ore., #06-35319, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 10153 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).
     Former state police officer who was removed from duty due to allegedly irrational behavior may proceed with a claim that she was regarded as disabled, where the psychologist that conducted fitness-for-duty evaluation diagnosed her as depressed, having a paranoid personality and unfit for duty. Broberg v. Illinois State Police, #06cv3901, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 7916, 20 AD Cases (BNA) 321 (N.D.Ill.).
     EEOC affirms a finding that an employee was discriminated against because of her bipolar disorder. She was removed for making inappropriate comments, disrespectful conduct, and for leaving the job without permission. Soriano v. Wynne, EEOC #03A60080, MSPB #AT-0752-04-0745-I-2, 2006 EEOPUB Lexis 2414 (EEOC 2006). {N/R}
     Can an employer legally fire a worker for lying in his job application and then violate the ADA by not giving him his job back? A divided federal appeals court affirms a jury award for a rejected reinstatement applicant that had been acquitted of attempted murder because of insanity. Josephs v. Pacific Bell, #03-56412, 432 F.3d 1006, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 28737, 17 AD Cases (BNA) 678 (9th Cir. 2005). [2006 FP Mar]
     Seventh Circuit affirms a summary judgment for the employer in Rehabilitation Act of 1973 action alleging that the plaintiff's supervisor created a hostile environment due to the plaintiff's paranoia and retaliated against her by failing to give her overtime because she had filed two prior EEOC charges. Derogatory remarks by the supervisor to others about the plaintiff's mental condition was insufficient to establish a hostile environment. Mannie v. Potter, #03-4340, 394 F.3d 977, 16 AD Cases (BNA) 641, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 1021 (7th Cir. 2005). {N/R}
     Tenth Circuit declines to rehire a sheriff's sergeant that had shot up her father's grave. She posed a potential risk to coworkers and the public. McKenzie v. Benton, #02-8024, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 23410 (10th Cir. 2004).[2005 FP Jan]
     Federal Court finds that Title II of the ADA does not apply to an officer's on-the-street responses to reported disturbances or other similar incidents, whether or not those calls involve subjects with mental disabilities, prior to the officer's securing the scene and ensuring that there is no threat to human life. However, the ADA requires police agencies to adopt policies and procedures for dealing with mentally ill persons, and that a failure to train police officers to peacefully deal with mentally ill persons is a violation of §12132 of the ADA. Schorr v. Bor. Lemoyne, #1:CV-01-930, 243 F.Supp.2d 232, 14 AD Cases (BNA) 32, 2003 U.S. Dist. Lexis 1979 (M.D. Pa. 2003). {N/R}
     Second Circuit overturns the summary dismissal of a claim that a public employee was fired because her superiors thought she might be suicidal. Suicide is a mental illness and a protected disability under the Rehabilitation Act. Peters v. Baldwin School Dist., #02-7018, 320 F.3d 164, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 2510, 13 AD Cases (BNA) 1793 (2nd Cir. 2003). [2003 FP Sep]
     Appeals court rejects the ADA claims of a worker who was fired for insubordination and threats of violence, and not because of her failure to submit to a medical examination. When an employer's inquiries about the mental health of an employee reflect a concern for the safety of coworkers, management may require the employee to undergo an examination. Williams v. Motorola, 00-13820, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 18276 (11th Cir. 2002). {N/R}
     Divided appeals panel opens the door for mentally disabled former employers to sue, under the ADA, if their benefits are less than those disabled for physical reasons. Johnson v. K Mart Corp., #99-14563, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 24923 (11th Cir.). [2002 FP Feb]
     Federal appeals court sustains the assignment of a police officer with severe depression to special monitoring unit. Krocka v. City of Chicago, #98-2250, 203 F.3d 507, 2000 U.S. App. Lexis 1649, 10 AD Cases (BNA) 289 (7th Cir.). [2000 FP 72]
     Title II of the ADA does not apply to an officer's on-the-street responses, whether or not those calls involve subjects with mental disabilities, prior to the officer's securing the scene and ensuring that there is no threat to human life. Sheriff's deputy not liable for a "suicide-by-cop" shooting. Hainze v. Richards, 207 F.3d 795, 2000 U.S. App. Lexis 6293, 10 AD Cases (BNA) 687 (5th Cir.). {N/R}
     The ADA was not violated when a deputy sheriff fatally shot a mentally disabled individual. If the deceased was denied access to medical services, it was because of his violent behavior and not because he was mentally disabled. Thompson v. Williamson County, 219 F.3d 555, 2000 U.S. App. Lexis 16679, 2000 FED App. 0233P, 10 AD Cases (BNA) 1367 (6th Cir. 2000). {N/R}
     Employee with depression, controlled by medication, was not disabled under the ADA. Julia v. Janssen, 92 F.Supp.2d 25 (D.P.Rico). {N/R}
     Employee with bipolar disorder who "feels fine" with daily lithium medication is not "substantially limited in a major life activity." McConnell v. Pioneer, 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 3335, 82 FEP Cases (BNA) 52, 10 AD Cases (BNA) 518 (D.S.D. 2000). {N/R}
     Officer with serious psychological problems could be disarmed and demoted or fired, without running afoul of the ADA. He was not "disabled" and the dept. had a duty to remove mentally unstable officers. Garner v. Gwinnet Co., 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 6370 (N.D. Ga.). [1999 FP 103-4]
     Explosive personality not protected under the ADA. Resistance to therapy made accommodation not possible. Duncan v. Wis. Dept. of Health #97-2198, 166 F.3d 930, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 1444, 8 AD Cases (BNA) 1800 (7th Cir.). [1999 FP 104]
     EEOC's Office of Legal Counsel issues "Enforcement guidance on the ADA and psychiatric disabilities." EEO document states that "attempting suicide does not mean that an individual poses an imminent risk of harm to him/herself when s/he returns to work." EEOC Notice 915.002 (3/25/97), 8 FEP Manual (BNA) 405:7461-7481; Internet www.eeoc.gov/ [1997 FP 102-4]
     EEOC issues rules on the application of the ADA to persons with psychiatric disabilities. EEOC Enforcement Guidance on the ADA and Psychiatric Disabilities, Vol. II EEOC Compliance Manual, Notice #915.002, 8 FEP Manual (BNA) 405:7461 (3-25-97). www.eeoc.gov/ [1997 FP 70-1]
     City employee who threatened to kill his superior and coworkers could be fired for mental instability; he was not a "qualified individual" under the ADA. Jones v. N.Y.C. Housing Auth., 1996 U.S.Dist. Lexis 14370, 6 AD Cases (BNA) 1 (S.D.N.Y.); 1996 U.S.App. Lexis 24943 (2nd Cir.). [1997 FP 23]
     Colorado Supreme Court allows evidence of a mental disorder to reduce punishment for repeated acts of misconduct. People v. Lujan, 890 P.2d 109 (Colo. 1995). [1995 FP 166-7]
     Appellate court affirms discharge of a juvenile detention officer who lost her temper. A bipolar disorder did not excuse her misconduct. Indiana Civ. Rts. Cmsn. v. Del. Co. Cir. Ct., 642 N.E.2d 541, 1994 Ind.App. Lexis 1603. [1995 FP 88]
     Police arrested and used force on a person who had or was regarded as having a mental disability. The court refused to dismiss his ADA claim, although the court did not specify how the police may have violated Title II in making the arrest. Barber v. Guay, 910 F.Supp. 790/at 802 (D.Me. 1995). {N/R}
     Public employer could terminate an employee who caused a disturbance and possessed a stun gun and chemical mace in the workplace, notwithstanding his mental disability. Gordon v. Runyon, 3 A.D. Cases 284, 1994 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4959 (E.D. Penn.); affd. 3 AD Cases 1600 (3d Cir. 1994). {N/R}
     Federal court upholds termination of an employee for misbehavior, even if the conduct was caused by her bipolar disorder. The A.D.A. does not protect an employee when the employer cannot accommodate misconduct (insubordination and abusive outbursts). Corrozza v. Howard County, 847 F.Supp. 365 (D.Md. 1994). {N/R}
     EEOC affirms a decision holding there was no unlawful discrimination against an FBI agent who was denied a pay increase for substandard performance, despite his claim it was caused by clinical depression. English v. Reno, EEOC #03-93-0030; 17 (5) MPDLR (ABA) 507 (EEOC 1993). [1994 FP 26]
     State licensing authority violated the A.D.A. (42 US Code 12132) when it asked applicants if they ever sought treatment for a nervous, mental or emotional condition or if they ever ingested a psychotropic drug. Ellen S. v. Fla. Bd. of Bar Exmrs., 63 L.W. 2101 (S.D.Fla. 1994). {N/R}
     Boston Police Dept. violated a state mental treatment law by asking about an officer's prior hospitalization for mental illness. Court would not create an exception for persons expected to carry firearms. Kraft v. Police Cmsnr. of Boston, 410 Mass. 155, 571 N.E.2d 380, 2 AD Cases 955 (Mass. 1991). Note: this pre-A.D.A. case would be decided the same under the Act. [1992 FP 41-2]
     Psychologically unfit police applicant was not a protected person under the Federal Rehabilitation Act. Daley v. Koch, 892 F.2d 212 (2nd Cir. 1989).
     Also see: Mental Illness and Instability; Suicide Related; Stress Related Claims and Defenses.

HANDICAP/ ABILITIES DISCRIMINATION
     REGARDED AS DISABLED
     Rejected police applicant with missing fingers is awarded $500,000 damages. He had 10 years of experience as a police officer in other nearby communities. Kreger v. Baldwin, #05-0789 (W.D. Pa. 2006). {N/R}
     A narcoleptic fire captain who was relieved of duty after his condition was discovered was not "regarded as" disabled. Ridgely v. Montgomery County, #580/04, 883 A.2d 182, 2005 Md. App. Lexis 198, 17 AD Cases (BNA) 382 (Md. Spec. App. 2005). {N/R}
     For the purposes of the ADA, management did not regard the plaintiff as mentally "disabled," in spite of the fact that her superior had requested a psychological fitness exam and that other deputy sheriffs had called her "nuts' and "crazy" -- treating her as if she were mentally ill. Lanman v. Johnson County, #03-3316, 393 F.3d 1151, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 27200, 16 AD Cases (BNA) 449 (10th Cir., 2004). {N/R}
     Personality conflicts among coworkers -- even those expressed through the use or misuse of mental health terminology -- generally do not establish a perceived impairment on the part of the employer, nor does a management order to take a fitness for duty exam. Lanman v. Johnson County Sheriff's Dept., #03-3316, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 27200, 16 AD Cases (BNA) 449 (8th Cir. 2004). {N/R}
     Eleventh Circuit overturns a $160,000 jury verdict for five partially-disabled police officers who were assigned to light duty and prevented from accepting moonlighting jobs. Their impairments did not substantially affect a major life activity, and although the city regarded them as disabled, the job of police officer is too narrow to qualify for relief under the ADA.. Rossbach v. City of Miami, #03-13348, 371 F.3d 1354, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 11111, 15 AD Cases (BNA) 1064 (11th Cir. 2004). [2004 FP Sep]
     Massachusetts Supreme Court overturns $90,000 judgment won by a police officer who was removed from the special response team after he shot a suspect. Even if his superiors regarded him as disabled, an inability to perform a particular assignment is not a disability under federal or state discrimination laws. City of New Bedford v. Mass. Cmsn. Against Discrim., #SJC-08885, 440 Mass. 450, 799 N.E.2d 578, 2003 Mass. Lexis 826 (2003). [2004 FP Apr]
     Federal court rejects a discrimination suit, filed by an ex campus police officer with dyslexia, who was fired for poor performance. Smith v. State Univ. of N.Y., #1:00-CV-1454, 2003 U.S. Dist. Lexis 6835, 14 AD Cases (BNA) 540 (N.D.N.Y. 2003). [2003 FP Aug]
     A duty physician with hepatitis C, who repeatedly missed work, was not "regarded as ... impaired" within the meaning of the ADA. Gowesky v. Singing River Hosp., #60283, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 2054 (5th Cir. 2003). Second Circuit upholds an ADA claim by a police officer that was passed over for sergeant because he had suffered an epileptic seizure. Treglia v. Town of Manlius, #01-9350, 313 F.3d 713, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 26120, 13 AD Cases (BNA) 1537 (2d Cir. 2002). {N/R}
     Under the ADA, a NYPD officer with a need to take the anticoagulant Coumadin, was regarded as unable to work as a full-duty patrol officer. He is not per se impaired from working as a law enforcement officer in either the public or private sectors. Giordano v. City of N.Y., #01-7370, 274 F.3d 740, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 27137 (2d Cir.). [N/R]
     Employee who had heart attack was not regarded as "disabled" under the ADA, even though her superior had sent her a "get-well" card and placed her on medical leave. Taylor v. Nimock's Oil Co., #99-2018, 214 F.3d 957, 2000 U.S. App. Lexis 12042, 10 AD Cases (BNA) 1069 (8th Cir.). {N/R}

HANDICAP/ ABILITIES DISCRIMINATION - RETALIATION

     Ninth Circuit rejects the suit of a former detective who claims constructive discharge because management purportedly terminated her because of her disability (depression and attempted suicide). However, she sufficiently alleged a claim of intimidation to warrant the trial of her lawsuit. Brown v. City of Tucson, #01-16938, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 15061 (9th Cir. 2003). [2003 FP Oct]

HANDICAP/ ABILITIES DISCRIMINATION
     SPECIFIC DISABILITIES
     A. DIABETES
     B. OTHER CONDITIONS
     A. Diabetes
     A diabetic police officer, suffering from dizziness and blackouts, was not substantially limited in a major life activity, because the symptoms were alleviated with prescription medications. Walker v. City of Vicksburg, #5:06cv60, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 2173; 20 AD Cases (BNA) 257, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 83974 (S.D. Miss.).
     Federal court finds that a non-insulin dependent mellitus type II diabetic police officer who experienced blackouts while driving was substantially limited in the major life activities of caring for himself and thinking. Walker v. City of Vicksburg, #5:06cv60, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 83974 (S.D. Miss.).
     Seventh Circuit reinstates a suit brought by a Type I insulin-dependent diabetic who was denied employment as a criminal investigator. The applicant raised a genuine issue as to whether he can perform the essential functions of the position without becoming a threat to the safety of himself or others. Branham v. Snow, #03-3599, 392 F.3d 896, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 26262, 16 AD Cases(BNA) 454 (7th Cir. 2004). {N/R}
     After the Mississippi Highway Patrol loses a motion to dismiss a DoJ suit, filed on behalf of a cadet with diabetes who was fired, the agency agrees to pay damages and change its policies of accommodation. U.S.A. v. Miss. Dept. of Pub. Safety, #3:00-CV-377, 2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4633, 15 AD Cases (BNA) 672 (S.D. Miss. 2004); settlement announced, DoJ Press Release CR-04-196. [2004 FP Jun]
     Individual with Type I diabetes, who takes insulin and has experienced serious diabetic-related physical conditions, was "disabled" under the ADA. Lawson v. CSX, # 00-1179, 245 F.3d 916, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 4881, 11 AD Cases (BNA) 1025 (7th Cir.). {N/R}
     Federal appeals court holds that a city is not required to employ a diabetic police officer who experiences hypoglycemic impairment. Burroughs v. Springfield, #98-1148, 163 F.3d 505, 1998 U.S. App. Lexis 32237, 8 A.D Cases (BNA) 1677 (8th Cir.). [1999 FP 74-5]
     Fifth Circuit rejects its 1995 and 1993 decisions holding that a driver with insulin-dependent diabetes poses a direct threat to the health and safety of others as a matter of law; see Daugherty v. El Paso, 56 F.3d 695 (5th Cir. 1995) and Chandler v. Dallas, 2 F.3d 1385 (5th Cir. 1993). Now, an employer must make an individualized assessment. See Kapche v. San Antonio, 176 F.3d 840 (5th Cir. 1999), involving the automatic exclusion of a police applicant. {N/R}
     Employee with diabetes mellitus was not "disabled" under the ADA because his condition was controlled by medication. Arnold v. U.P.S., #97-1781, 1998 U.S. App. Lexis 2952, 7 AD Cases (BNA) 1489 (1st Cir.). {N/R}
     Federal court in Kansas rejects the EEOC classification of diabetes as a per se disability. Officer's termination for performance problems cannot be challenged under the ADA. Deckert v. City of Ulysses, 4 AD Cases (BNA) 1569, 1995 U.S.Dist. Lexis 14526 (D.Kan.). [1996 FP 24]
     Diabetic EMT was not "disabled" within meaning of the ADA. Gilday v. Mecosta, 920 F.Supp. 792, 5 AD Cases (BNA) 758 (W.D.Mich. 1995). [1996 FP 121-2]
     Minnesota supreme court holds that a job applicant with diabetes did not have a disability under the state's human rights law. Sigurdson v. Carl Bolander & Sons., 532 N.W.2d 225 (Minn. 1995). [1996 FP 24]
     Federal court affirms termination of diabetic police officer who suffered a hypoglycemic reaction while on duty. Siefken v. Vill. of Arlington Hts., 1994 U.S.Dist. Lexis 13015 (N.D.Ill.), aff'd 1995 U.S. App. Lexis 26010, 65 F.3d 664, 4 AD Cases (BNA) 1441. [1995 FP 39-40]
     Police officer with diabetes was allowed to proceed with a claim the refusal of a police pension fund to enroll him violated the ADA. Holmes v. City of Aurora, 1995 WL 21606 (N.D.Ill. 1/18/95). See also U.S. v. St. of Illinois, 3 AD Cases 1157 (N.D.Ill. 1994). To settle all claims, the city council agreed to pay the officers $2,000 to drop his federal court lawsuit, make a $31,413 payment to the pension plan for the 10 years no money was paid in his behalf, and pay his attorneys $70,000; 8/17/95 Chi. Trib. 2-4. {N/R}
     Arbitrator holds that a sheriff's dept. violated the employment agreement by allowing a diabetic deputy to change to the day shift without regard to seniority rights. Clark Co. Sheriff's Dept. and F.O.P., 102 LA (BNA) 193 (Kindig, 1994). [1994 FP 119]
     Diabetes - see also: City of Dearborn Heights and D.H.P.S.A., 101 LA (BNA) 809, A.A.A. #54-39-0203-93 (Kanner, 1993) for a contrary ruling. [1994 FP 24-5]
     Michigan arbitrator upholds a unilateral transfer of a police lieutenant to the day shift to accommodate his diabetes, despite the union's objection that shift assignments are strictly controlled by a seniority clause in the collectively bargained agreement. Dearborn Heights and D.H P.S.A., AAA Case #54-39-0203-93, 101 LA (BNA) 809 (Kanner, 1993). [1994 FP 24-25]
     Diabetes - see also: T.W.A. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63, 97 S.Ct. 2264 (1977); Mackie v. Runyon, 804 F.Supp. 1508 (M.D.Fla. 1992); and Clark Co. Sheriff's Dept. and F.O.P., 102 LA (BNA) 193 (Kindig, 1994)discussed at [1994 FP 119]
     School dist. did not have to accommodate bus drivers with type II insulin dependent diabetes. Such person are at risk from hypoglycemia and complications from hyperglycemia, the onset of which may occur without warning. Wood v. Omaha School Dist., 25 F.3d 667, 3 AD Cases (BNA) 481 (8th Cir. 1994). {N/R}
     Federal Court enjoins Ohio police dept. from blanket exclusion of insulin-dependent applicants. A.D.A. requires a case-by-case analysis of candidates. Bombrys v. City of Toledo, 849 F.Supp. 1210 (N.D. Ohio 1993). [1994 FP 169-70]
     In a pre-ADA ruling, the FBI was justified in rejecting a special agent applicant who was an insulin-dependent diabetic. Davis v. Meese, 692 F.Supp. 505 (E.D. Pa. 1988).
     Maine Supreme Court upholds regulation forbidding employment of diabetic drivers in jobs effecting public safety. Jackson v. State of Maine, 47 FEP Cases (BNA) 395 (Me. 1988).
     Diabetic employee, discharged for insulin use, awarded $793,000 for wrongful termination. Employer could not introduce national health standards into evidence without proof of use by employers. Hines v. Grand Trunk Western R.R. Co., 391 N.W.2d 750 (Mich. App. 1985).

     B. Other Conditions

     Appellate panel rejects a suit by an asthmatic corrections officer who sought a smoke-free work environment. "The evidence establishes, and the DOC does not dispute, that [her] asthma was a physical impairment" but she "has not presented significant probative evidence that her impairment substantially limited a major life activity, thereby becoming a disability." Lord v. Ariz. Dept. of Corr., #06-15875, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 14432 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).
     Fifth Circuit rejects an ADA claim raised by a former corrections officer who developed traumatic mydriasis and photophobia (extreme sensitivity to sunlight) after an inmate assault. He is not disabled because he is able to see out of his injured eye, he continued to work as officer for nine months after assault, and passed vision tests for a driver's license. Watson v. Texas Youth Cmsn., #07-50295, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 5468, 10 AD Cases (BNA) 1019 (5th Cir.).
     Federal court declines to dismiss a suit brought by a corrections officer applicant who was rejected because she was born with only one hand. Taylor v. Hampton Roads Regional Jail Auth., #2:07cv294, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 37508 (E.D. Va.).
     Editor's Note: The plaintiff had hired an expert in tactical defense training who led her through a series of drills; each one related to an essential function. The tests assessed her ability to:
     (1) load and unload handgun magazines;
     (2) insert a loaded magazine into a handgun;
     (3) charge a semi-automatic handgun;
     (4) change magazines during sustained firing;
     (5) clear various types of weapon malfunctions;
     (6) fire while holding a flashlight;
     (7) positioning her firearm;
     (8) shoot off-handed;
     (9) fire a shotgun;
     (10) handcuff prisoners;
     (11) conduct pat down searches;
     (12) execute basic law enforcement grasps and takedowns; and
     (13) use a knife in self-defense.
     The applicant's expert concluded, with accommodation, that she could discharge all of the essential functions of a jail officer.
     The Jail Authority offered "nothing more than the generalized, conclusory statements of its employees." None of the defense witnesses attempted to explain why the evaluation by the plaintiff's expert was inaccurate, implausible, or otherwise not indicative of on-the-job conditions.
     Long before passage of the ADA, amputees had won discrimination lawsuits.
     * In California, an amputee won an order for reinstatement with the highway patrol; the absence of foot. Sedler and Cal. Highway Patrol, Calif. Public Emp. Retir. Sys. Case #562-20-4688, CHP File #76.A1273.A2868 (1982).
     * In Illinois, an applicant with amputated leg was entitled to seek employment as city firefighter. A state law banning the appointment of amputees was found to be unconstitutional. Melvin v. City of West Frankfort, 417 N.E.2d 260 (Ill. App. 1981).
    For shift accommodation purposes, a corrections officer with photophobia (sensitivity to light) was not disabled because his sight was not significantly restricted when compared to the general population. Watson v. Texas Youth Cmsn., #07-50295, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 5468 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
     Federal court in Washington holds that a city did not violate the ADA by requiring an epileptic job applicant to provide a driver's license or proof of mobility, because mobility was an essential requirement of the position of information coordinator. McKereghan v. Spokane, #06-cv-0215, 2007 U.S. Dist Lexis 83859, Pacer Doc. 41 (E.D. Wash.2007).
     EEOC rules that a police officer that experienced breathing problems after an exposure to cologne is not disabled because he was not substantially limited in the major life activity of breathing. EEOC Office of Legal Counsel, Opin. Letter Oct. 1, 2007, 45 (2233) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 1363.
     Officer, with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, is not disabled within the meaning of the ADA or state law. His inability to correctly report his time worked is not a substantial impairment, and he was lawfully fired after repeatedly turning in false time sheets. The fact he was president of the union did not prove his termination was retaliatory. Van Compernolle v. City of Zeeland, #06-1904, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 16735 (6h Cir.) affirming, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 32963 (W.D. Mich. 2006).
     Customs Service officer with a attention deficit hyperactivity disorder failed to prove that there was a discriminatory motive for placing her on restricted duty or requesting a fitness-for-duty evaluation. Montgomery v. Chertoff, #03CV5387, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 30519, 19 AD Cases (BNA) 542 (E.D.N.Y. 2007).
      Appellate court affirms a management refusal to assign a captain to command a fire station, after the loss of his leg during a work-related accident. Because the LAFD offered him other positions with comparable pay and promotional opportunities, he did not suffer an adverse employment action. Malais v. Los Angeles City Fire Dept., #B189575, 2007 Cal. App. Unpub. Lexis 2618 (2d Dist.).
     An employee's "violent outbursts" can be symptomatic of a bipolar disorder and a jury might find that it was employee's personality and not her work product that motivated the employer to terminate her. Gambini v. Total Renal Care, #05-35209, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 9290 (9th Cir.).
     A person with monaural hearing, impairing the ability to localize sounds, is not disabled within the meaning of the ADA. Moreover, "an allegation that the employer regards the impairment as precluding the employee from a single, particular position," such as a courthouse security officer, "is insufficient to support a claim that the employer regards the employee as having a substantially limiting impairment." Walton v. U.S. Marshals Service, #05-17308, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 2937 (9th Cir.).
     Sixth Circuit concludes that a person with sleep apnea, chronic depression, irritable bowel syndrome, judgment disorder, and panic attacks was not disabled. Greathouse v. Westfall, #06-5269, 2006 WL 3218557, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 27882, 18 AD Cases (BNA) 1310 (unpub. 6th Cir. 2006). [N/R]
     Deaf employee was not qualified for a transfer to the security detail that apprehends shoplifters. Barnhart v. Wal-Mart Stores, #06-12024, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 27245, 2006 WL 3147301, 18 AD Cases (BNA) 1201 (11th Cir. 2006). {N/R}
     EEOC failed to prove that an employee's morbid obesity (body weight more than 100% over the norm) was the result of a physiological condition; a physical characteristic must relate to a physiological disorder in order to qualify as an ADA impairment. EEOC v. Watkins, #05-3218, 463 F.3d 436, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 23177, 2006 FED App. 0351P, 18 AD Cases (BNA) 641 (6th Cir. 2006). {N/R}
     Federal appeals panel concludes that three Columbus, OH, firefighters with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are not "disabled" because their condition is controlled by the drug Ritalin. They wrote that "the ADA's coverage is restricted to only those whose impairments are not mitigated by corrective measures." Knapp v. City of Columbus, #05-3455, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 17081, 18 AD Cases (BNA) 338 (6th Cir. 2006). {N/R}
     Officer, with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, is not disabled within the meaning of the ADA or state law. His inability to correctly report his time worked is not a substantial impairment, and he was lawfully fired after repeatedly turning in false time sheets. The fact he was president of the union did not prove his termination was retaliatory. Van Compernolle v. City of Zeeland, #1:05-CV-133, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 32963 (W.D. Mich. 2006). [2006 FP Oct]
     Ninth Circuit reverses a summary judgment for the employer on an ADA lawsuit brought by an epileptic heavy-equipment operator. The employee was entitled to a jury trial on the reason for his termination, his qualifications and whether he was a "direct threat" to his fellow employees. Dark v. Curry County, #04-36087, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 16838 (9th Cir. 2006). {N/R}
     Eighth Circuit holds that a person with a mental impairment that substantially limits his or her ability to think and concentrate is disabled under the ADA. Battle v. United Parcel Service, #04-4123, 438 F.3d 856, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 4031 (8th Cir. 2006).{N/R}
     D.C. Circuit reverses a verdict of $64,180 plus $157,397 in attorney's fees for a police officer with a blood disease. The evidence did not match the claimed impairment. Gasser v. Dist. of Columbia, #04-7018, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 7893 (D.C. Cir. 2006). {N/R}
     Firefighter with multiple sclerosis was a disabled person under Texas disability discrimination laws. Davis v. City of Grapevine, #2-05-145-CV, 2006 Tex. App. Lexis 1877 (2d App. Dist. 2006). {N/R}
     Federal court rejects a suit filed by a corrections officer that became ill from cigarette smoke. Her condition did not limit her general ability to breathe or work. Vinson v. NYC Dept. of Corrections, # CV-01-6900, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 3943 (E.D.N.Y. 2006). [2006 FP Apr]
     Reversing a District Court, the Second Circuit concludes that "night blindness" could be a disability within the meaning of the ADA. Capobianco v. City of New York, #04-3230, 422 F.3d 47, 17 AD Cases (BNA) 1, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 18981 (2nd Cir. 2005). {N/R}
     California appellate court upholds a $2,597,088 jury verdict against the Dept. of Corrections for a failure to accommodate an employee with Hepatitis C. Green v. State of Cal., #E034568, 132 Cal.App.4th 97, 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 254, 2005 Cal. App. Lexis 1337 (4th Dist. 2005). [2005 FP Nov]
     Arbitrator rejects a disabilities defense for a corrections officer with sleep apnea. There was no showing that the condition caused her to oversleep and repeatedly report late to work. Fed. Bur. of Prisons and AFGE L-709, 120 LA (BNA) 1755, FMCS #04/53975 (Sellman 2005). [2005 FP Sep]
     Appeals court sustains the termination of a public employee who was unable to perform maintenance duties because of a back injury. An inability to lift more than 60 pounds is not a substantial limitation on a major life activity. Kupstas v. Greenwood, #04-2081, 398 F.3d 609, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 2528, 16 AD Cases (BNA) 808 (7th Cir. 2005). {N/R}
     Although Tourette's Syndrome impairs an FBI photographer's social interactions, he "has the basic ability to communicate and interact with others" and is not disabled. Bell v. Gonzales, #03-163, 2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4913 (D.D.C. 2005). {N/R}
     Fire chief did not have to accommodate a firefighter with claustrophobia, as the condition did not affect a major life activity. Walker v. Town of Greeneville, #2:03-CV-385, 347 F.Supp.2d 566, 2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis 26919 (E.D. Tenn. 2004). {N/R}
     A woman employee with ovarian cysts, which resulted in the occasional need to sit down because of pain, and the occasional inability to come to work because of dizziness, was not disabled under the ADA. Her condition, at most, caused difficulties in performing a particular job and did not affect the major life activity of working. Guzman-Rosario v. U.P.S., #04-1046, 397 F.3d 6, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 1730 (1st Cir. 2005). {N/R}
     Although a public employee may suffer from idiopathic pruritus, if the symptoms are brought on by his presence in a single workplace, the impairment is not "substantially limiting" within the meaning of the ADA. The plaintiff claimed the condition caused him to feel as if insects were crawling on his skin, but the symptoms only occurred while at work. Haynes v. Williams, #03-7134, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 26276 (D.C. Cir. 2004). {N/R}
     A kidney impairment that limits an individual's ability to eliminate body waste impairs a major life activity under the ADA. Fiscus v. Wal-Mart, #03-2513, 385 F.3d 378, 16 AD Cases (BNA) 10, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 20776 (3rd Cir. 2004). {N/R}
     EEOC issues an "informal guidance letter" that employers may not disclose to employees that a coworker has hepatitis C, citing 29 C.F.R. §1630.14(b) and (c). The Commission noted that the information "is considered confidential, and an employer has an obligation under the ADA to safeguard it." EEOC Advisory Letter, 73 (9) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 2137 (6/17/04). {N/R}
     "The risks associated with bipolar disorder, whether treated or untreated, however slight the risks might be, support the Transit Authority's conclusion that the absence of bipolar disorder is an essential function of being a bus driver." Siederbaum v. New York, 01-Civ-9289, 309 F.Supp.2d 618, 15 AD Cases (BNA) 728, 2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4607 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). {N/R}
     Federal court finds that a factual issue existed as to whether a former police officer's fibromyalgia substantially limited her ability to walk, because she uses cane when walking and she has significant back pain. Jackson v. City of Chicago, #02 C 3057, 293 F.Supp.2d 836, 2003 U.S. Dist. Lexis 21428, 15 AD Cases (BNA) 474 (N.D.Ill. 2003). {N/R}
     A worker impaired by attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was not "disabled" within the meaning of the ADA, because he was not unable to work in a broad class of jobs, even though he was unable to work steadily in his current position. Whitlock v. Mac-Gray, #02-2568, 345 F.3d 44, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 20275; 14 AD Cases (BNA) 1569 (1st Cir. 2003). {N/R}
     An employee with multiple sclerosis (MS), who missed work because of headaches, dizziness, vertigo and extreme fatigue, was not disabled within the meaning of the ADA. "She has merely shown that she has had to take many unscheduled absences." Croy v. COBE Labs, #02-1366, 345 F.3d 1199, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 20260, 92 FEP Cases (BNA) 1218, 14 AD Cases (BNA) 1570 (10th Cir. 2003). {N/R}
     An epileptic employee who was fired after several incidents of confrontational and threatening behavior was not disabled or regarded as disabled. Epilepsy did not limit his major life activities outside the workplace. The fact that he was advised to seek professional anger-control assistance did not establish that management regarded him as disabled. Brunke v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber, #03-1373, 344 F.3d 819, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 19934, 14 AD Cases (BNA) 1473 (8th Cir. 2003). {N/R}
     A District of Columbia Government worker fails to convince the court that his severe skin condition, which caused sleep problems, was a disability under the ADA. Haynes v. Williams, #01-454, 2003 U.S. Dist. Lexis 14842, 14 AD Cases (BNA) 1463 (D.D.C. 2003). {N/R}
     Federal court rejects a discrimination suit, filed by an ex campus police officer with dyslexia, who was fired for poor performance. Smith v. State Univ. of N.Y., #1:00-CV-1454, 2003 U.S. Dist. Lexis 6835, 14 AD Cases (BNA) 540 (N.D.N.Y. 2003). [2003 FP Aug]
     Fifth Circuit finds that chronic pancreatitis was an impairment for ADA purposes but the worker was unable to show that the condition substantially limited his ability to eat food, even if recurring temporary conditions caused him to miss work. Waldrip v. General Electric, #02-30155, 325 F.3d 652, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 6303, 14 AD Cases (BNA) 301 (5th Cir. 2003). {N/R}
     A person with voice impaired by laryngeal dysphonia is not substantially limited in the ability to talk. Hooper v. Saint Rose Parish, #99 C 6267, 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 10936 and 205 F.Supp.2d 926, 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 12850, 13 AD Cases (BNA) 1742 (N.D. Ill. 2002). {N/R}
     A manager with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder was not entitled to reinstatement following his termination for repeated tantrums. Calef v. The Gillette Co., #02-1444, 322 F.3d 75, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 4253, 14 AD Cases (BNA) 110 (1st Cir. 2003). {N/R}
     Employee with panic disorder and agoraphobia, causing her to fear leaving home and to avoid traveling, is a qualified individual with a disability under the ADA, even though she would not suffer symptoms if she were medicated. Kuechle v. Life's Companion, #C9-02-233, 653 N.W.2d 214, 2002 Minn. App. Lexis 1273. {N/R}
     Supreme Court holds that carpal tunnel syndrome, if characterized by muscle atrophy and extreme sensory deficits, is a disability if the employee is unable to perform the variety of tasks central to most people's daily lives, and not whether the worker is unable to perform the tasks associated with a specific job. Toyota Motors v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002). {N/R}
     Impaired sleep, preventing an employee from working overtime is not a disability. Boerst v. General Mills, #00-3281, 25 Fed. Appx. 403, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 813 (Unpub. 6th Cir. 2002). {N/R}
Symptoms from multiple sclerosis substantially limited the plaintiff's major life activities of concentrating and remembering. Gagliardo v. Connaught Labs, # 01-4045, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 23953 (3d Cir. 2002). {N/R}
     Officer with an injured finger was not "disabled" under the ADA. Fultz v. City of Salem, #01-35355, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 19678 (Unpub. 9th Cir. 2002). [2002 FP Dec]
     Federal court dismisses an ADA suit by an asthmatic corrections officer who was fired for missing work more than a third of her scheduled workdays during the nine months preceding her termination. Thorner-Green v. NYC Dept. of Corrections, #00-CV-489, 207 F.Supp.2d 11, 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 12177 (E.D.N.Y. 2002). {N/R}
     Hawaii Supreme Court rejects a discrimination complaint of a "mildly dyslexic" police dispatcher who was forced to resign for repeatedly garbling critical information. Bitney v. Honolulu Police Dept., #22981, 96 Haw. 243, 30 P.3d 257, 2001 Haw. Lexis 318. [2002 Oct. FP]
     Appeals court holds that a rejected LAPD applicant with an artificial leg was not protected under California's disability discrimination law. "The police department is the sole judge of whether it wishes to assume the risk of hiring an officer whose prosthetic leg may rotate or, even worse, fall off while he is running on uneven ground, climbing six-foot fences, jumping over obstacles, or climbing an embankment," Christensen v. City of Los Angeles, #B149031, 2002 Cal. App. Unpub. Lexis 1680 (Cal.App. 2002). {N/R}
     An employee with a medical condition resulting in his being unable to read more than half of the workday, is not a qualifying disability under the ADA. Szmaj v. AT&T, #01-3379, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 9977 (7th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     A county employee with ocular albinism and corrected vision of 20/60 was not disabled under the ADA. Manz v. Gaffney, #CV 99-8442, 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 8363 (E.D.N.Y. 2002), relying on Colwell v. Suffolk County Police Dept., 158 F. 3d 635, 8 AD Cases (BNA) 1232 (2d Cir. 1998). [N/R]
     A district adjudication officer with the Immigration and Naturalization Service who suffers from chronic muscle pain is not disabled; her impairment did not substantially limit a major life activity, including working. Stein v. Ashcroft, #00-4326, 284 F.3d 721, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 4560 (7th Cir.2002). [N/R]
     Ex-officer's claim that his narcolepsy was not accommodated by the sheriff is involuntarily settled for $26,000 by his creditors, acting through bankruptcy procedures. Larson (substituted for Buniger) v. Waterman, #01-CV-441 (D.Colo. 2002), removed from Montrose County, Colo., Dist. Ct. (#01cv8). Settlement reported in the Denver Post, 4/25/2002. [2002 FP Jul]
     Federal court holds that a corrections officer with a back injury that prevents him from restraining prisoners was neither "disabled" nor a "qualified individual" under the ADA. Marsolais v. Mass. Dept. of Corr., #98-11709, 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 3991 (D. Mass. 2002). [N/R]
     Federal court in N.Y. holds that the ability to get along with others is "a major life activity" within the meaning of the ADA; the plaintiff suffers from bipolar disorder. Jacques v. DiMarzio Inc., 97-CV-2884, 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 3399 (E.D.N.Y. 2002). [N/R]
     A restriction on lifting heavy objects is not a "disability" within the meaning of the ADA. Mason v. UAL, #01-10218, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 26418 (5th Cir. 2001). {N/R}
     Supreme Court rejects appeal of a worker who claimed he was handicapped because he was only able to have sex twice a month. Appellate court had said it was not a major disability under the ADA. Contreras v. Suncast Corp., #00-1977, 237 F.3d 756, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 41, 84 FEP Cases (BNA) 1273, 11 AD Cases (BNA) 600; cert. den. #00-1877, 2001 U.S. Lexis 5637, 70 L.W. 3234 (2001). [2001 FP 153-4]
     Appeals court finds that the inability to drive is not a disabling impairment. Chenoweth v. Hillsborough Co., #00-10691, 250 F.3d 1328, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 8802 (11th Cir.). [2001 FP 85]
     A former county corrections officer whose mental and emotional conditions were affected by a head injury could not successfully raise an ADA claim for a decision not to promote him to sergeant and ultimately to terminate him. Land v. Washington Co., 99-3203, 00-1211, 243 F.3d 1093, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 4063, 11 AD Cases (BNA) 1061 (8th Cir.). {N/R}
     A nurse who cannot lift more than 40 pounds is not disabled under the ADA. Brunko v. Mercy Hosp., #00-2989, 260 F.3d 939,
     2001 U.S. App. Lexis 18358 (8th Cir. 2001). {N/R}
     An inability to drive to work for six months was not a disabling impairment under the ADA. Chenoweth v. Hillsboro Co., #00-10691, 250 F.3d 1328, 11 AD Cases (BNA) 1421, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 8802 (11th Cir.). {N/R}
     Federal appeals panel rejects an ADA suit by an employee who has a fear of driving to new places. Sinkler v. Midwest Prop. Mgmt., #99-1582, 209 F.3d 678, 2000 U.S. App. Lexis 6247 (7th Cir.).
     Justice Dept. sues Mississippi for not accommodating a diabetic state trooper. U.S. v. Miss. Dept. of Public Safety (D. Miss.); DoJ Civil Rights Release #00-274. [2000 FP 105-6]
     Former investigator who suffers from bipolar disorder and obsessive compulsive disorder failed to demonstrate that he was substantially limited in a major life activity, where he takes medications that control his symptoms. Scherer v. GE, 59 F.Supp.2d 1132, 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 12471, 9 AD Cases (BNA) 1820 (D. Kan. 1999). {N/R}
     Sleeping, engaging in sexual relations, and interacting with others are major life activities within the meaning of the ADA. McAlindin v. Co. of San Diego, 192 F.3d 1226, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 22352, 9 AD Cases (BNA) 1217 (9th Cir. 1999). {N/R}
     Appeals court affirms ruling for an employee with colitis. Ryan v. Grae & Rybicki, #96-9681, 135 F.3d 867, 1998 U.S. App. Lexis 1863, 7 ADA Cases (BNA) 1387 (2nd Cir.). {N/R}
     A worker with carpal tunnel syndrome is not substantially limited in the major life activity of performing manual tasks. Schultz v. Lear Corp., 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 9340, 10 AD Cases (BNA) 60 (W.D. Va. 1999). {N/R}
     Federal court upholds termination of a corrections officer taking Coumadin, an anticoagulant. Pickering v. City of Atlanta, 75 F.Supp.2d 1374, 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 18136 (N.D. Ga.). [2000 FP 171-2]
     Refusal to waive a peace officer certification requirement so that a one-handed civilian communications employee could be promoted violated the ADA. Mathes v. Harris Co., 96 F.Supp.2d 650, 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 7335 (S.D.Tex.). [2000 FP 120-1]
     A firefighter applicant who was rejected because of a total hearing loss in his left ear is not a "qualified individual"' within the meaning of the ADA, where the ability to localize sound and discriminate among sounds. Leverett v. City of Indianapolis, 51 F.Supp.2d 949, 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 7660, 9 AD Cases (BNA) 1812 (S.D. Ind.). {N/R}
     Transit authority employee with monocular vision is not disabled, since he is able to perform in different capacities for transit authority, although he is prevented by state law from employment as bus driver. Hooks v. NYC Transit Auth., 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 18958, 10 AD Cases (BNA) 1758 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). {N/R}
     Dyslexic bar exam applicant with not substantially limited in major life activity of working; it is her education, experience, or innate ability, rather than reading skills, that prevents her from passing examination. Bartlett v. N.Y.S. Bd. of Law Examiners, 226 F.3d 69, 2000 U.S. App. Lexis 22212, 10 AD Cases (BNA) 1687 (2nd Cir. 2000). {N/R}
     Employer could lawfully discharge a worker with Tourette Syndrome who would blurt out obscene words and ethnic insults. The use of offensive language on a daily basis in the presence of visitors, children, and other employees disqualified him as a suitable employee, as a matter of law. Petzold v. Borman's Inc., #211567, 241 Mich.App. 707, 617 N.W.2d 394, 2000 Mich. App. Lexis 165. {N/R}
     Police officer who was passed over for promotion, was not regarded as having disability under the ADA; there was no evidence that his herniated disc "substantially limited" a major life activity. Ellinger v. Frazier, 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 2638, 10 AD Cases (BNA) 266 (D.Md. 1999). {N/R}
     Police officer who sustained back and leg injuries with a 30-percent limitation on his ability to walk, does not rise to requisite level of substantiality. Piascyk v. City of New Haven, 64 F.Supp.2d 19, 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 15346, 10 AD Cases (BNA) 365 (D.Conn.). {N/R}
     Inmate supervision is an essential function of a corrections officer. Her use of anticoagulant drugs precluded her from engaging in dangerous activities such as escorting and restraining inmates. Pickering v. City of Atlanta, 75 F.Supp.2d 1374, 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 18136, 10 AD Cases (BNA) 761 (N.D. Ga.). {N/R}
     A railroad police officer's back injury was not a disability under the ADA, even if is accompanied by pain. His impairment did not substantially limit a major life activity. Lennon v. Finegan, 78 F.Supp.2d 258, 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 78, 164 LRRM (BNA) 2254, 10 AD Cases (BNA) 729 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). {N/R}
     Federal court in Texas rejects an ADA claim by a epileptic worker who is on medication. Todd v. Academy, 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 12133, 9 AD Cases 1306 (S.D. Tex.). [1999 FP 168]
     Federal appeals court rejects ex-officer's ADA and FMLA suit to set aside his termination after he attempted suicide. Spades v. City of Walnut Ridge, # 98-4119, 186 F.3d 897, 9 AD Cases 1015, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 17894 (8th Cir.). [1999 FP 139-140]
     Fifth Circuit rejects appeal of an insulin-dependent terminated Texas police officer. Management did not have to reclassify or create a job to accommodate his disability. Gonzales v. City of New Braunfels, # 98-50290, 176 F.3d 834, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 9699, 9 AD Cases (BNA) 632. [1999 FP 133]
     Federal appeals court holds that a worker who had a heart attack and suffers from coronary disease is not disabled under the ADA, because he was not limited in the major life activities of running, performing manual tasks, lifting, or working. Hilburn v. Murata Electronics, Cir., #98-9313, 181 F.3d 1220, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 16692, 9 AD Cases (BNA) 908 (11th Cir.). {N/R}
     $1.4 million verdict overturned: a police officer with torn medial meniscus was not perceived as disabled; there were no other positions within the city that the officer could perform. While unable to fulfill his duties as a patrolman, he was not limited in the major life activity of work. Real v. City of Compton, 1999 Cal. App. Lexis 732, 73 Cal.App.4th 1407, 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 531, 9 AD Cases (BNA) 1107 (Cal.App.). {N/R}
     Federal appeals court holds that the ADA did not protect a firefighter with severe coronary artery disease who cannot respond to emergencies. Lusby v. Metro. Wash. Airports Auth., #98-2162, 37 (1826) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 1041 (Unpub., 4th Cir. 1999). {N/R}
     Employee's ulcerative colitis was not a disability because the employee admitted that the condition did not require accommodation in the work environment and did not prevent the performance of all his assigned tasks. Hobson v. Raychem Corp., 73 Cal.App.4th 614, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 497, 1999 Cal. App. Lexis 659. {N/R}
     Second Circuit concludes that ulcerative colitis and "panic disorder" are not disabilities under the ADA. Colitis attacks were intermittent; panic disorder is not an impairment recognized by the EEOC. Ryan v. Grae & Rybicki, 135 F.3d 867 (2nd Cir.) and Reeves v. Johnson, 7 AD Cases 1675 (2d Cir. 1998). [1998 FP 89-90]
     Agoraphobia and panic disorder is not disabled under the ADA. Reeves v. Johnson, 7 AD Cases (BNA) 1675 (2d Cir.). {N/R}
     City did not have to retain an epileptic officer who could not drive; no duty to radically restructure his duties in violation of the bargaining agreement. Scheer v. Cedar Rapids, 6 AD Cases (BNA) 830, 956 F.Supp. 1496 (N.D.Iowa 1997). [1997 FP 167]
     Federal appeals court allows ADA suit by rejected trainee who is missing 18 teeth. Suits alleging discrimination because an applicant is "regarded" as being disabled do not require a plaintiff to claim he or she is disabled. Johnson v. Amer. Chamber of Commerce Publ., 108 F.3d 818, 1997 U.S.App. Lexis 5213 (7th Cir.). [1997 FP 71-2]
     Fed. appeals ct. rejects EEOC suit of an epileptic who was terminated because his seizures disrupted the employer's business. Martinson v. Kinney, 104 F.3d 683 (4th Cir. 1997). {N/R}
     Corrections officer who was reclassified as a vehicle operator because of a lack of "communicative and cognitive skills," was not "disabled" within the meaning of the ADA. Burke v. Comm. of Virginia, 938 F.Supp. 320 (E.D.Va. 1996). [1997 FP 57]
     Major life activity of working is not "substantially limited" if the employee cannot work under a p