Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
A company with a policy that says the best candidate is always hired should re-word that policy. A company does not want to get a reputation for abusing or discriminating against individuals with disabilities. In this country, such individuals are considered capable of doing the same things as those without disabilities. The United States has adopted a caring, understanding, accommodating attitude towards these individuals. Companies within this country should mirror the values of the country. The policy should state that under most circumstances, the most qualified candidate will be chosen for a vacant position. However, a clause explaining the guidelines of the ADA should be included. The company should make it very clear where they stand when it comes to reassignment. Is it automatic if the positions are comparable and the employee is qualified, or does the employee have to compete with other, qualified applicants? Posting the guidelines clearly helps avoid misunderstandings in the future.
This case opens the door for employers to state that other forms of accommodation are not necessary and the ADA policies...
The word "reasonable" is vague. While one company may contend that it is reasonable to reassign a recently hearing impaired person to a comparable position where the loss of hearing will not affect performance, another employer may think that being forced to move an applicant into a vacant position is not reasonable. The case could lead towards forms of discrimination against individuals with disabilities. The company can always claim another candidate is more qualified. Disabilities are limiting, and a disabled person simply may not be able to compete. Once a case like this comes along, other employers may be tempted to use similar arguments to deny disabled employees reasonable employment. The problem in this case is the argument that someone else was more qualified, and the disabled person was allowed to compete for the position. An open position will state minimum requirements not maximum requirements. As long as the minimum is met, that should be enough to qualify someone for a position. To contend that another individual somehow exhibited a greater degree of the minimum requirements seems absurd.
7). This point brings up one of the larger issues suggested by the opinion (which will be discussed in greater detail later), namely, the fact that the conflict between the law's position on jurisdiction and this kind of estoppel is "yet another case where the government has 'taken entirely irreconcilable positions regarding the jurisdiction of the federal courts," leading to increased litigation and cost (Lettow, 2012, p. 7). Thus,
S.B. 1070, ACA, AND FEDERAL PREEMPTION 1070, the ACA, and Federal Preemption S.B. 1070, the ACA, and Federal Preemption Tenth Amendment The Tenth Amendment was intended to limit the scope and power of the federal government, thereby preserving some measure of state autonomy (Lash, 2006). The Tenth Amendment accomplishes this by stating explicitly that the federal government can only exercise those powers enumerated within the U.S. Constitution. All other powers are left to the
Adarand v. Pena Summary of Case: Federal and State laws allow race-based remedial action at the federal, state and local government levels. The laws are designed to benefit "socially and economically disadvantaged individuals." At the same time, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. constitution provide equal protection of the laws for all citizens. In this case, a prime highway contract was awarded in 1989 to Mountain Gravel by the Central
The Court also held that the protections afforded by applicable provisions of the ADA are worded in such a way as to indicate that they pertain to disabilities with respect to their condition as corrected by assistance devices or medications. Since petitioners asserted that their physical disabilities were mitigated effectively by corrective lenses, they do not meet the statutory definition of "disabled" by virtue of their uncorrected visual acuity. Finally,
Is the EEOC's understanding of its rule entitled to respect under Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke, 127 S. Ct. 2339 (2007) -- a case decided twelve days after the Eighth Circuit delivered its decision in this case? Martel v. Clair - Docket No., 10-1265 In this case after ten years of capital federal habeas corpus proceedings in the district court, respondent abruptly complained about and sought substitution of his
CIV S-90-0520 LKK JFM P, 2009 WL 2430820 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2009). (2010). Harvard Law Review, 123(3), p.752-759. This article discusses the civil rights case Coleman v. Schwarzenegger wherein the plaintiff sued California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger for unconstitutional prison conditions. The lawsuit was examined in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA). The court ruled that authorities should