• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

District Court rules actual disability not relevant to "regarded as" claim

mark handler

mark handler

SAWHORSE
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
11,678
Location
So. CA
District Court rules actual disability not relevant to "regarded as" claim

District Court rules actual disability not relevant to "regarded as" claim - Lexology

A new case under the amended American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) may add to employers’ confusion over how to handle medical and disability issues. Butler v. Louisiana Dep’t of Pub. Safety & Corr., No. 3:12-cv-000420 (M.D. La. 2013). In Butler, a state trooper alleged he was “regarded as” disabled by his employer, who allegedly thought he had obsessive compulsive disorder and germaphobia. He claimed he was placed on involuntary leave, subjected to an excessive fitness-for-duty exam, and denied overtime opportunities. The defendant employer denied the allegations and asserted the “direct threat” defense. It sought discovery of the plaintiff’s psychiatric records and moved to compel production when the employee objected to the requests. The court denied the motion to compel and made several interesting pronouncements.

“Regarded As” Claim Can Be Raised Even If Actually Disabled

Under the ADA, a plaintiff may be disabled in three ways, via: (1) an actual disability, (2) a record of a disability, or (3) being regarded as disabled. 42 U.S.C. §12102(1)(A)-©. The defendant argued a plaintiff cannot be both regarded as disabled and actually disabled. The court disagreed, citing a provision of the law amended by the 2008 Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (“ADAAA”). Section 12102(3)(A) says a person is regarded as disabled if subjected to a prohibited action because of either an “actual or perceived” impairment “whether or not the impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity.” The regulations also state that whether a person is actually disabled is “not relevant” to coverage under the regarded-as prong. 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(j)(2).
 
I agree; it's not for the employer to determine whether a person has a disabling condition, it's the burden of the employee IF they are asking for special accommodation. This employer may have some big problems.
 
Many restaurants used to have a "no pets allowed" policy, now "service pets" must be allowed, and the pet doesn't have to have one of those "bibs" stating that they are a service pet, if an employee challenges someone with a "pet" all the person has to say is "It's a service dog", or "It's a service cat", the employee can ask no more questions and has to allow the pet to stay, the employee can't even ask what kind of "service" the pet renders the person, it could be a simple as the person is depressed and the service pet makes him/her more comfortable.
 
Lets see, we have an armed officer out on the street that we think might have mental issues and it is discriminatory to try to find out if it is safe to have him out there?

So what happenes if he turns out to be mentally unstable and acts inappropriately injuring citizens?

Looks like the court is saying he has to hurt some one before action can be taken.
 
1. What is the background of the supervisor that observed the obsessive compulsive behavior? Is the supervisor a license d professional capable of that diagnosis?

2..is obsessive compulsive disorder a hazard to the public or to the person? Personally I would rather get the "aggressive cops off the force before the cop that needs everything in it's place
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top