How the Americans with Disabilities Act Protects Workers Case Study

Case Analysis PaperCase #1: Weaver v. Nebo School District, 29 F. Supp. 2d 1279 (D. Utah 1998) (p. 557)Parties: The Plaintiff in this case was Wendy Weaver and the defendants included the Nebo School District (a public school district in the southern part of Utah County) as well as Robert Wadley, Almon Mosher, Larry Kimball, Denis Poulsen, and multiple Does.Facts: The Plaintiff was employed as a teacher with the Nebo School District who also coached the schools girls volleyball team for which she received a stipend. The incumbent coach was typically selected for the position, but the Plaintiff claimed she was denied a renewal of her coaching position due solely to her voluntary admission that she was a homosexual.Issue: The Plaintiffs claims in this case were as follow: 1) correspondence from the school administrator to her dated July 22 and October 29, most especially the restrictions on her speech, were vague and overbroad and operated to restrain her speech which was constitutionally protected; and, 2) the schools decision to remove her as volleyball coach and failure to rehire her for another seasons was based on her sexual orientation only, an impermissible reason which was violative of the 14th Amendment.Applicable Law(s): The applicable law in this case was the 1st Amendments protections of free speech and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment which prohibits discrimination based, in part, on sexual orientation (Covais, 2022).Holding: The Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in this case was granted and the Defendants' motion for summary judgment was denied, and the school was ordered to remove the objectionable correspondence from her personnel file.Reasoning: The court reasoned that the communitys animus towards homosexuals did not override the Plaintiffs 1st and 14th Amendment protections.Case Questions:Case Question #1: What would you have done if you had been the school administrator receiving calls in this situation? As indicated in Note #1: The word "gay" is used in the vernacular of this age. A similar inquiry put in the Nineteenth Century would reflect an entirely different status or characteristic, and I would agree that antiquated views about homosexuality and animus in the community should be allowed to discriminate against the Plaintiff.Case Question #2: Do you think the school was correct in ignoring the teachers record? The school did not ignore the Plaintiffs teaching record so much as it assigned a higher priority to satisfying the concerns of students and parents.Case Question #3: Does it make a difference that this matter did not arise at the teachers instigation but in response to a question from a student? Explain. The Plaintiffs response to the verbal question from a student concerning the Plaintiffs sexual orientation was inappropriate and should not have been answered at all as part of school district policy, especially since this is the proximate cause of the lawsuit. The students inappropriate question was analogous to a student asking teachers if they like to molest little children or if they beat their spouse. In sum, the Plaintiffs response was offered almost eagerly, and the Plaintiff had every opportunity to decline to answer based on the inappropriateness of the interrogatory.Conclusion: The Plaintiffs fundamental 1st Amendment rights to constitutionally protected speech were violated by the school administrator in this case, and the courts decision to grant her summary judgment was aligned with the provisions of the 14th Amendment.Case #2: Macy v. Holder, Appeal No. 0120120821 (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Apr. 20, 2012), p. 559Parties: The Appellant in this case was Mia Macy (a male transitioning to female) and the Appellee was the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (the Agency) and its then-acting director, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.Facts: The Appellant alleged that the Agency unlawfully discriminated against her by denying a promised job after learning that she was transgender, a position for which she applied as a man. Pursuant to internal Agency policy, the Appellants complaint was divided into several claims: 1) discrimination based on sex, 2) gender identity and sex stereotyping, and, 3) transgender status. The Agency determined that only the sex-discrimination claim could be referred to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the Commission) but the other two could be reviewed internally for resolution, a process that did not provide for a hearing. Moreover, the remedies available to the Agency were more limited than those available from the Commission and the Appellant claimed that the Agency had improperly determined that her other claims did not constitute sex discrimination.Issue: The Appellant maintained that the Commission had the appropriate jurisdiction for all of her claims and the Commission should therefore investigate all three of her charges of sex-based discrimination.Applicable Law(s): The 14th Amendment prohibits discrimination based on, among other things, sexual orientation which includes the transitioning period and culmination of acquiring a different gender.Holding: The Commissions decision was not an attempt to resolve the Appellants original claims but rather its holding was that all three of the Appellants claims were subject to adjudication pursuant to the provisions of Title VII and should therefore be remanded to the Agency for additional processing as a Title VII sex discrimination claim.Reasoning: The Commission viewed Appellants claim that she was denied a position that was previously promised her when she was a man favorably.Case Questions:This was a very important decision by the EEOC because it changed its previous position. Do you understand the agencys analysis of why it held as it did in the decision? Negative stereotypes and longstanding and biases against Americans who choose to pursue what they regard as their true gender cannot be allowed to rise to the level of sex discrimination in the workplace.Do you understand why the prospective employer may have been concerned and made the decision it did? Explain. Given the high stakes of the Agencys mission, it is reasonable to posit that it was concerned about the mental stability of the Appellant during this transformative period in her life.Given the evolution of the law as set forth by the EEOC, do you agree with the EEOCs conclusion? Yes, an individual who transitions from one gender to the other still has the same Social Security number, background, experience and so forth.Conclusion: The Commission decided correctly in consolidating all three of the Appellants claims as sex-based discrimination that were subject to adjudication pursuant to Title VII.Case #3: Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana, No. 15-1720 (7th Cir. 2017), p. 564Parties: The Plaintiff-Appellant in this case was Kimberly Hively, an openly lesbian, part-time adjunct professor, and the Defendant-Appellee was Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana.Facts: Despite repeated applications to obtain full-time employment with Ivy Tech, the Plaintiff-Appellant was turned down and eventually had her contract cancelled (Corcoran, 2018). Following her filing of a lawsuit with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana where it was dismissed for failing to state a specific claim since sex-discrimination claims were treated differently from sexual- orientation claims.Issue: This issue in this case was a pure question of statutory interpretation and the Plaintiff-Appellants rejection of heterosexual norms and conformity with traditional female stereotypes.Applicable Law(s): Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964Holding: The Seventh Circuit Court held that discrimination based on sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination.Reasoning: The text of Title VII specifically states that sex only needs to be a motivating factor in order to identify cases of sex discrimination and sex is a perquisite for employer sexual-orientation discrimination.Case Questions:Do you understand why the cllege would not hire Kimberly Hively? Explain. No, the reasoning passes understanding in an enlightened society.Do you understand the courts reasoning for the decision? Yes, just because Congress could not anticipate every possible contingency that could arise did not prevent the application of the protections of Title VII to the Plaintiff-Appellants case.What would you have done had you been the college administrator who was faced with this decision? Explain. The decision to whether to hire the Plaintiff-Appellant would have been based strictly on qualifications and merit.Conclusion: Times change and so too do the protections afforded by Title VII.Case #4: Nichols v. Azteca Restaurant Enterprises, Inc., 256 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2001). p. 566Parties: The Plaintiff in this case was Antonio Sanchez and the Defendant was Azteca Restaurant Enterprises, Inc. (Azteca)Facts: In response to a claimed hostile work environment based on his male coworkers…

Some parts of this document are missing

Click here to view full document

…the appropriate test to prove discrimination in this case? Under this test, what then does Hostettler need to show? The Plaintiff was required to identify direct evidence of discrimination based on her Title VII protections.Is full-time attendance an essential job function of Hostettlers position? Was Hostettler otherwise qualified for her position? If Hostettler was failing to fulfill her duties, what steps ought the College of Wooster have taken before firing Hostettler? Although the Plaintiff was otherwise qualified for her job, the position required a full-time employee who was physically present in the workplace.Do you believe the employer made a good-faith effort to reasonably accommodate the employee? Can you imagine a reasonable accommodation the College of Wooster otherwise might have been able to provide for Hostettler? Why might it be in the employers best interest to provide reasonable accommodations to people with disabilities, regardless of whether there is a requirement to provide an accommodation? The term reasonable is operative here. At some point, any employee stops being an asset and becomes a liability, and the Defendant has a legitimate need to ensure organizational efficiency and productivity; however, organizations that go the extra mile to accommodate disabled workers beyond the provisions of the ADA can boost their public image in ways that help attract new talent.Conclusion:This case highlighted the fact that employers have multiple legal responsibilities to accommodate workers with disabilities, but there is a limit beyond which they are not required to go.Case #8: Brown v. Milwaukee Bd. of Sch. Dirs., 83 Wis. 2d 316 (1978), p. 762Parties: The Plaintiff in this case was Sheila Brown and the Defendant was Milwaukee (WI) public schools.Facts: The Plaintiff was employed as an assistant principal who suffered an injured knee following an incident with an unruly student. After a series of surgical procedures including a total left knee replacement, the Plaintiff and her physician advised the Defendant that she had a permanent disability that inhibited her physical movements and she could not be in the vicinity of any unruly students. The Defendant maintained that all students, like any other humans, were potentially unruly and concluded that the Plaintiff was either ineligible or unqualified for any of the positions that were available prior to the expiration of her 3-year medical leave and terminated her as a result.Issue: Did the Defendants termination of the Plaintiffs employment violate her rights?Applicable Law(s): The Americans with Disabilities Act and comparable Wisconsin lawHolding: Upon appeal, the District Court held that the Defendant afforded the Plaintiff reasonable accommodation under the relevant provisions of the law and denied her motion for summary judgment.Reasoning: The record clearly demonstrated the lengths to which the Defendant went in attempting to accommodate the Plaintiffs disabilities.Case Questions:Are you more persuaded by the analysis of the Seventh Circuit? Like professional athletes, some types of injuries take people out of the game permanently such as in this case.Does this case represent a clear win for the employer? What guidance would you give an employer after the holding in this case? What policies might be most effective? Given the massive amount of time and other organizational resources that were devoted in an attempt to accommodate the Plaintiffs disabled condition, the case was not a clear win. A more effective strategy for employers would be to provide employees in similar circumstances with a career pivot opportunity.What implications might this case have for determining the reasonableness of other forms of accommodation? Reasonableness exists along a continuum, and employers must reach a threshold in order to fully comply with the provisions of the ADA.Conclusion: Educators who are forced to avoid unruly students should reconsider their professional career path.Reflection: Gender has become an increasingly nebulous reference in recent years, and the same constitutional protections that are afforded Americans apply equally to individuals who claim nonbinary status. The cases reviewed above make it clear that all employees have a wide array of rights in the United States, and these protections are intended to everyone, including those who behave and appear different, are treated equitably. Nevertheless, these cases also made it clear that these protections have limits and employers are also protected provided they make the effort…