ADA Amendments, to Affect Employment Disability Guidelines

Last June 25, 2008, the U.S. Lower House of Congress has finally approved a bill, making an effort to alter some provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act or ADA. In a landslide endorsement, the House has forwarded H.R. 3195 or ADA Amendments Act of 2008, to the Senate for consideration.

As stated in the proposed bill, various changes and reforms will be made in ADA as an alleged reaction of the Congress for the latter interpretation of the Supreme Court involving two renowned cases. Although the White House is predicted to veto this bill, no one may assure how the president will respond with this recently proposed law amendment.

Let me now discuss some of its provisions that might change how Californians view ADA, particularly the issues related to employment disability.

Ever since, California defines “disability” in a much broader sense than ADA does. In fact, the California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act has been offering several protections stated in H.R. 3195. Yet, the passage of this law might reveal the following effects:

• There will be an increase in number of employment disability cases filed in California

• Since the proposed amendment offers more protections, many employees would rather file their disability discrimination lawsuits under ADA provisions rather than using FEHA

• Disabled employees would have better chances for employment

• Companies in California would less bases not to hire or accommodate employees who have either mental or physical impairments

As we can see, the law greatly favored the labor sector. However, as I view it, this new bill will just enhance those laws that are already been set in place to protect the welfare of the disabled people. Further, this will not bring much effect on the employers but it will just give them additional reminders to increase employment opportunities for disabled yet qualified employees.

Share |

The Latest Trend That Is Employment Litigation

Many employment litigation springs across the country. The trend is caused by dynamically broadening and expanding state labor laws. But lawyers are having a hard time. Corporate America will not easily give up without a fight.

Employment litigation takes time and money. In the meanwhile, the terminated, harassed or discriminated employee, as the case may be, gets nothing but the hope that the suit will pay off in the end. Fortunately for many, they get positive results. The long line of decided cases proves indeed.

A US Circuit Court of Appeals recently holds a hotel president personally liable for multiple wage-hour violations. What was before a suit against a company now involves managers and officers, personally. The trend is brought about by the practice of growing number of courts in liberally construing states labor laws. In effect, judges are now allowing potential lawsuits against individuals to proceed in employment litigation.

The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission very recently charged Abingdon Wal-Mart with a $250,000 disability discrimination lawsuit for firing a long-time pharmacy technician because of gunshot disability.

The agency said that along with the payment of $250,000, Wal-Mart is also required to perform the following:

• Observe the ADA and post a notice to employees regarding the same
• Have all salaried supervisors and managers complete training on the ADA with annual refresher training for the next 3 years
• Submit a list of all employees who have been denied reasonable accommodation and/or complained that they have been unlawfully denied reasonable accommodation or terminated because of their disabilities.

The US Department of Justice even has Employment Litigation Section which enforces Civil Rights and other federal laws prohibiting employment practices on the grounds of race, sex, religion and national origin against state and local government employers.

Since 2007, the Section has filed or authorized 18 and growing number of cases including a major “pattern or practice” prevailing in many employment litigations. This only prove the latest trend of many employees waking up and acting on their rights instead of sitting on them for fear of losing their jobs.

Share |