Category Archives: Discrimination

May 7, 2013

Small Colorado Employers Face Higher Damages for Discrimination Claims

By Mark Wiletsky and Steve Gutierrez

Small businesses beware: your employees now have more incentive to sue you. As of January 1, 2015, employees can recover compensatory and punitive damages for employment discrimination claims against businesses that employ between one to fourteen people under Colorado’s Job Protection and Civil Rights Enforcement Act of 2013, signed into law by Governor John Hickenlooper on Monday, May 6, 2013. But don’t despair. By taking some proactive steps now, businesses can minimize their exposure to potential claims.

Increased Exposure for Small Employers

Colorado’s new anti-discrimination law changes the landscape for small employers by allowing compensatory and punitive damages against Colorado’s small businesses (with 1-14 employees), along with attorneys’ fees and costs to the employee if he or she prevails, back pay, front pay, interest, and other potential relief. Thankfully, the new Colorado law contains some safeguards against outrageous damage awards that would likely put small employers out of business. For businesses with 1-4 employees, compensatory and punitive damages are capped at $10,000. For businesses with 5-15 employees, such damages are capped at $25,000. Businesses with greater than 15 employees are subject to the existing damages caps found in the federal anti-discrimination laws.

The availability of these damages to employees of businesses with fewer than 15 employees will likely result in more discrimination cases filed in Colorado against small businesses, significantly raising the potential exposure for small business owners. That is especially true given that such claims may be filed in state court, which is often viewed by attorneys representing employees as a more favorable forum for such claims.

Age Discrimination No Longer Cut Off at Age 70

The Job Protection and Civil Rights Enforcement Act of 2013 also eliminates the age 70 cutoff for age discrimination claims brought under Colorado law. This brings the state law into line with the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act which does not have an upper age limit. Consequently, employees age 40 and older are protected from employment discrimination under both state and federal law.

Good Faith Efforts May Avoid Punitive Damages

Under the new Colorado law, employers will not be subject to punitive damages if they can demonstrate good-faith efforts to prevent discriminatory and unfair employment practices in the workplace. In addition, no punitive damages are available in a lawsuit involving a claim of failure to make a reasonable accommodation for a disability if the employer can demonstrate good-faith efforts to identify and make a reasonable accommodation that would provide the disabled employee with an equally effective opportunity and would not cause an undue hardship on the employer’s operation. Small businesses should begin those good-faith efforts now so that policies and procedures to prevent and respond to discrimination are in place when the law goes into effect.

Steps Small Businesses Should Take to Minimize Risk

Unfortunately for small businesses, the mere threat of a lawsuit, however meritless, may stretch tight resources to the breaking point. That is why it is so important to take proactive measures now, which will help minimize the risk of such lawsuits. Among other things, small businesses should:

1) Adopt and distribute policies that prohibit discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in the workplace. Require new and existing employees to acknowledge their receipt of these policies, preferably on an annual basis.

2) Train supervisors, managers and employees. Everyone in the workplace should be trained on your anti-discrimination policies and procedures with specialized training provided to supervisors and managers who must recognize harassment and discrimination and know what to do when they observe it or receive a complaint. In small workplaces, dealing with complaints of discrimination or retaliation can be difficult. Still, if you address it promptly and appropriately, you will be in a better position to avoid or defend against a claim.

3) Document performance issues. We often see meritless lawsuits filed because legitimate performance concerns were not shared with the employee or appropriately documented. If an employee has performance issues, be sure to get it in writing. Focus on the problem, give concrete examples, and warn the employee that a failure to achieve immediate and sustained improvement may result in termination.

4) Arbitration agreements. Consider whether it would be appropriate to have employees sign an arbitration agreement. Such agreements take discrimination claims out of the civil court system, and generally allow for a more streamlined resolution. However, arbitration is not necessarily cheaper than a court proceeding; in fact, in some cases it might cost more. Be sure to consider all the benefits and burdens of arbitration before relying on such agreements. And if you prefer arbitration, make sure your agreement complies with all applicable legal requirements.

Essentially, small employers need the same policies and procedures to deal with discrimination as larger employers do, even though many smaller employers simply do not have the same resources. Take the next 18 months before the law becomes effective to educate yourself, your supervisors and your employees on discrimination issues and take the steps that will help minimize your risk to the damages that will be available soon to aggrieved employees.

January 30, 2013

EEOC Fails to Prove Credit Checks have Discriminatory Impact

By Mark B. Wiletsky

Is checking an applicant’s credit history discriminatory? According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), using credit checks to screen out applicants may be discriminatory if it has a disproportionately significant impact on a protected group. Although a court recently dismissed an EEOC lawsuit against an organization concerning its use of credit checks, the case should serve as a reminder to review your own policies and procedures with respect to using background and credit checks in the hiring process, as this is likely not the last time the EEOC or the courts will address the issue.

EEOC Sues Claiming Use of Credit Checks Has Disparate Impact on Black Applicants

In December 2010, the EEOC sued Kaplan Higher Learning Education Corporation (Kaplan), alleging that Kaplan’s practice of using credit history in making hiring decisions has a disparate impact on Black applicants in violation of Title VII. In other words, the EEOC asserted that Kaplan’s use of credit histories—while not facially discriminatory—had a disproportionate impact in terms of screening out Black applicants. Kaplan, however, defended its use of credit histories in the hiring process. It claimed that it used credit reports to assess applicants for financial and operational positions after discovering system breaches that allowed business officers to misappropriate student funds. Kaplan asserted that it reviewed an applicant’s credit history to determine whether the individual is under “financial stress or burdens” that might compromise his or her ethical obligations.

In order to provide statistical analysis showing disparate impact on Black applicants, the EEOC relied on its expert, Dr. Kevin Murphy, to analyze the applicant pool and those rejected due to their credit report. Because the race of each applicant was not known, the EEOC’s expert tried to use other means to make determinations about the applicant’s race, even when it was not known.

Kaplan asked the Court to exclude Dr. Murphy’s testimony and report and ultimately, dismiss the EEOC’s case, arguing that Dr. Murphy’s method of determining race was scientifically unsound. The Court agreed. In the absence of any reliable, scientifically sound evidence to link the use of credit reports to race, the Court granted summary judgment to Kaplan.

Use of Credit Reports Going Forward

In the last four or five years, the EEOC has made an issue out of employers’ use of credit reports and criminal history records in hiring decisions, resulting in the filing of a number of lawsuits. The EEOC’s track record in these cases, however, is mixed. In an earlier case alleging disparate impact related to the use of criminal history records, the EEOC finally agreed to dismiss the case after more than three years while the federal court ordered sanctions of over $750,000 against the EEOC for continuing to litigate when it knew of fatal flaws in proving disparate impact. (See EEOC v. Peoplemark, Inc., No. 08-cv-907 (W.D. Mich. 2008)). On the other hand, the EEOC was able to obtain a $3.1 million settlement and policy revisions from Pepsi when it challenged Pepsi’s use of background checks in 2011.

Despite the EEOC’s spotty results in proving disparate impact in these background check cases, employers need to be careful and deliberate in how they use credit reports for hiring purposes. Credit reports should be used only where job-related, such as for applicants seeking positions involving financial responsibility, high level managerial decisions or as required by law. Conduct credit checks only after making a conditional job offer so as not to weed out candidates prematurely on the basis of credit. Finally, be aware that eight states currently have statutory restrictions on the use of credit history in employment decisions so if you are located or are hiring in California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, Maryland, Connecticut, Hawaii or Vermont, you will need to comply with those restrictions.

January 14, 2013

ADA Reasonable Accommodations Require an Interactive Proces

by Mark B. Wiletsky

Although some say talk is cheap, that saying does not apply when evaluating an employee’s request for a job accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Instead, it is important to engage in an open discussion with the disabled employee; failing to do so can easily land your organization in court. A Texas school district recently learned that lesson when a federal judge ruled that discharging a disabled classroom aide without engaging in a good faith interactive process regarding reasonable accommodations could result in liability for the district for a violation of the ADA. Nelson v. Hitchcock Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 3:11-CV-00311 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 21, 2012).

Disabled employee needed accommodation after exhausting FMLA leave. Iris Nelson had worked for the Hitchcock Independent School District (“District”) as a teacher’s aide for the Head Start program since 1996. In February 2009, Nelson learned she needed to have knee replacement surgery on both knees due to severe bilateral knee arthritis. Nelson soon took leave covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) for surgery on her right knee. In August 2009, shortly before the new school year was to begin, Nelson met with the District’s payroll and benefits supervisor, Theresa Fails, to request another two-and-one-half months off for surgery on her left knee. Fails informed her that she had exhausted her FMLA leave and would not be eligible for additional leave until the following year.

Nelson claims that she told Fails that she would work using a cane or a walker until she became eligible for more leave but Fails allegedly responded that she could not use walking aids. Nelson also stated that she would just have to take pain pills, a suggestion Fails supposedly refused as well. After the meeting, Fails notified the District’s interim Head Start director and the school superintendent of the conversation and recommended that until a doctor’s note could be obtained and a decision made, Nelson should not be allowed to return to work.

Without hearing anything more on her accommodation request, Nelson returned to work on August 17, 2009 and filed a form requesting leave which would begin on August 20, 2009. Nelson did not receive a response to her leave request and unilaterally took off to have her surgery on August 23, 2009. On August 25, 2009, the District’s superintendent sent Nelson a letter denying her leave request, noting that she had exhausted her FMLA entitlement. Six days later, the superintendent sent Nelson a notice of termination, informing her that her “employment with Hitchcock ISD has been terminated for being unable to perform the essential functions of your job.” Not surprisingly, Nelson sued, claiming that the District violated the ADA when it terminated her instead of accommodating her disability.

Court finds evidence that District failed to engage in ADA-required interactive process. The Court concluded that Nelson’s ADA claim could proceed to trial as Nelson presented sufficient evidence that the District never engaged in the communication and good faith interactive process regarding her accommodation requests that is required under the ADA. The Court noted that Nelson offered to postpone her surgery had she been allowed the accommodation of using a cane, walker or pain pills. Although the District argued that it would have been unreasonable to allow Nelson to supervise children while using a walking aid or while under the influence of pain medications, the Court ruled that it need not reach a reasonableness determination because the District had failed to engage in the required interactive process that would have allowed the District to assess the alternate accommodations. The Court pointed out that had the District discussed the alternatives with Nelson, it could have clarified whether she needed a walking aid or pain pills or both, whether any over-the-counter medications would have been sufficient and what the side effects of any required dosage would be. Only by engaging in that dialog could the District determine whether Nelson’s requested accommodations would impose an undue hardship on the District.

Lessons learned. When faced with an accommodation request, employers should not jump to deciding whether the proposed solution places an undue burden on the company, without first actually talking to the employee and seeking further input from the employee if the proposed solution seems unreasonable or unworkable. Employers must engage the employee in an interactive dialog to discuss what would allow the employee to perform the essential functions of their job. Remember, when it comes to reasonable accommodations under the ADA, there is often more than one way to skin a cat. The first accommodation requested may not be the only, or even the best accommodation for a particular disabled employee. By including the affected employee in the accommodation process, employers meet their ADA obligation while exploring the options that could allow the employee to stay on the job. You may not always reach a solution that works for both parties, but as long as you try in good faith—and appropriately document your efforts—it is much harder for the employee to attack your process and actions in a lawsuit down the road.

November 12, 2012

Consider ADA Before Discharging Employee When Leave Expires

By Mark Wiletsky

Can you fire an employee who is unable to return to work due to a medical impairment if that individual has exhausted all of his available leave? What if the employee has been on an extended leave of absence, and has exhausted his Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave and short-term disability benefits, but still has some restrictions on his ability to work? The answer: maybe, but only if you have engaged in an individualized inquiry under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) before doing so.

Some companies provide generous amounts of leave for employees with health or medical issues. Still, a company should not have a policy by which it automatically terminates employees who cannot return to work when they have exhausted available leave, or if they are unable to return without restrictions. Such policies likely violate the ADA, which generally requires an individualized approach to working with individuals with disabilities. Automatically discharging an employee just because that person has exhausted available leave is not consistent with the ADA's individualized inquiry. Similarly, demanding that individuals be 100% recovered from an injury or impairment before returning to work typically violates the ADA's requirement to accommodate disabled employees who are qualified, but unable to perform the essential job functions without an accommodation.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has challenged a number of companies that maintained these blanket policies, and it continues to do so. On November 9, the EEOC announced that it entered into a consent decree (which is essentially a public settlement agreement) with a nationwide trucking company that supposedly discharged employees automatically upon exhausting their leave or when they were unable to return to work without restrictions. Although the company admitted no wrongdoing, to resolve the lawsuit it agreed to pay $4.85 million, revise its policies to comply with the ADA, provide mandatory periodic training to employees on the ADA, report particular employee complaints about the ADA to the EEOC, post a notice about the settlement, and appoint an internal monitor to ensure compliance with the consent decree.

To avoid these issues or a potential ADA violation due to your leave policies, consider the following tips:

If you have a policy that requires an employee to be able to work without restrictions, or if you discharge employees as soon as they exhaust available leave, you should work with counsel to revise those policies.
When an employee is nearing the end of his available leave, send a letter or call the employee to remind him that his leave is about to expire. If the employee is unable to return when the leave expires, set a time to meet with the employee to determine whether you can accommodate the employee, either with more leave (potentially) or with some other type of accommodation. While you are not required to provide indefinite leave, you may be required to grant some additional time off, or consider another accommodation, if the employee qualifies for protection under the ADA.
Follow-up in writing with the employee after the interactive meeting, to confirm the discussion and avoid any disputes down the road about what was said or agreed upon in terms of the employee's status and ability to return to work.

Managing employee leaves is not easy, and it often requires navigating a variety of statutory rights, including the FMLA, the ADA, and workers' compensation. But taking an individual approach is far better than relying on a "one-size-fits-all" policy, which may very well result in a lawsuit or enforcement action.

June 7, 2012

Last-Chance Agreements — Employer beware!

The EEOC, in its recent press release (http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-29-12.cfm) of May 29, 2012, announces a rare victory on summary judgment in what could be a bad trend for employers. In the underlying case of EEOC v. Cognis Corporation, a foreign multinational corporation, the federal judge ruled that the company retaliated against an employee for refusing to waive his rights to file a discrimination charge, both for past conduct and prospective conduct.

The employee, as a condition of continued employment, was asked to sign a last-chance agreement that prohibited him from filing a discrimination charge. According to the EEOC, Cognis conditioned the employment on the execution of the last chance agreement and when the employee refused to be bound by that agreement he was fired. As the Court noted in its opinion, it is not often that an employee is granted summary judgment on a Title VII retaliation claim.

The outcome here is problematic for two reasons. First, in most cases there is often a fact issue over the stated motivation for the adverse action taken by the employer because the motivation for the underlying decision is almost always in dispute; thus, there is a necessary question of fact that would defeat a summary judgment. Second, the Court’s willingness to discount the fact that had the employee not executed the last-chance agreement in the first instance he would have been terminated for a legitimate and non-discriminatory reason – poor performance – is worrisome. In rejecting Cognis’s argument on this point, the Court reasoned that even if it credited Cognis’s argument; it was the employee’s revocation of the last-chance agreement that constituted an adverse action, an act that might dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. (See Opinion). This reasoning, of course, doesn’t adequately address the fact that the worker essentially was given consideration to remain employed under the last-change agreement.

What is clear from the Court holding in Cognis is the fact that the last-chance agreement is said to have threatened termination for undertaking future protected activity, which the Court says satisfies one element of the prima facie case of retaliation – a preemptive retaliatory act. Now, all that remains for the Court is a determination of damages. If the Cognis last-chance agreement had not included this prospective provision, I wonder how the case would have turned.

This holding is sure to motivate the EEOC to seek out similar cases of this kind. The EEOC concludes its release by indicating that “[f]iling EEOC charges is a fundamental right of American employees, and this agency always stands ready to protect that right.” EEOC’s Chicago District Director John Rowe further states, “This court’s opinion should cause employers to remember that seeking to dissuade employees from exercising that right is not only bad policy, it’s a violation of federal law which can give rise to very substantial liability.”

Despite the Court’s finding and the threats by the EEOC, this author maintains that narrowly crafted last-chance agreements are often useful to employers, both to ensure employees understand that future satisfactory performance is demanded and to give the employee fair opportunity to improve his/her conduct.

For more information contact Steven M. Gutierrez.

April 2, 2012

EEOC Issues Final Rule On Disparate Impact

By Mark Wiletsky

Last week, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued its final rule governing disparate impact claims arising under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). A disparate impact occurs when a policy or practice that is facially neutral has a disparate, or significantly greater, impact on older workers than younger ones. The EEOC's final age bias rule addresses the “reasonable factors other than age” defense, or RFOA, under the statute. According to the EEOC, the rule “makes the existing regulation consistent with the Supreme Court’s holding that the defense to an ADEA disparate impact claim is RFOA [reasonable factors other than age], and not business necessity[.]” For more information, see the post by my colleague, Scott Randolph.

July 21, 2011

Rehab and One Month of Sobriety Not Enough to be Considered Safe

By Jude Biggs

We all know all too well that illegal drug use and alcoholism cause terrific problems in the workplace, for the addict employee, co-employees and the business. We know that addiction is a medical problem that can sometimes be treated with success. Balancing the needs of the business and hope for the employee’s recovery can be tricky to say the least.

A recent case from the Tenth Circuit, which interprets the ADA for Colorado employers, illustrates the difficult balancing that occurs under the law. The ADA does not protect current illegal drug users, but it provides a safe harbor for those who have successfully completed a drug rehabilitation program (or otherwise rehabilitated successfully) and are “currently” or no longer engaging in the use of illegal drugs. But what does it mean to be “currently” free of illegal drugs? Read on to understand how to deal with employees who have used illegal drugs in the recent past.

Background

Peter Mauerhan worked as a sales representative for Wagner Corporation from 1994 until June 2005. In 2004, Mr. Mauerhan voluntarily entered an outpatient drug rehabilitation program, which met evenings and did not affect his work schedule. Wagner knew he was in the program.

On June 20, 2005, Wagner asked Mr. Mauerhan to take a drug test; he admitted he would test positive (for cocaine and THC/marijuana) but submitted to the test anyway. After testing positive, he was fired for violating Wagner’s drug policy, but was told he could return to Wagner if he could get clean. On July 6, 2005 he entered an inpatient program, which he completed on August 4, 2005. His rehabilitation counselor reported his prognosis at discharge as “guarded.”

The day after being discharged, Mr. Mauerhan asked to return to work at Wagner. He was told he could return, but not at the same level of compensation or with the same accounts he had served before. Mr. Mauerhan refused the changed terms. In later proceedings, Mr. Mauerhan asserted he remained drug free since completing the drug treatment program in July 2005.

In October 2005, he filed a charge of discrimination, asserting that he had been discriminated against on the basis of his status as a drug addict, and later filed a lawsuit asserting the same thing. Wagner asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that Mr. Mauerhan was a current drug user within the meaning of the ADA at the time he had asked to be rehired. The Company also argued that even if Mr. Mauerhan had a protected disability at that time, the Company’s offer to reinstate him proved it had not discriminated against him. The district court dismissed the case, concluding that Mr. Mauerhan was not protected by the ADA as he was a “current” drug user at the time he reapplied for work.

How Long Must Someone Be Clean to be Considered a Former Drug User?

The Mauerhan case is an important one, as it is the first time the Tenth Circuit has provided guidance on how to determine the difference between a current or former drug user. Although the status of being an alcoholic or illegal drug user may merit ADA protection, the ADA and its implementing rules say that an employee or job applicant is not a “qualified individual with a disability” if he or she “is currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs” when the employer acts on the basis of such use. But the ADA also creates a safe harbor for those who are not currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs, by protecting employees who (1) have successfully completed a supervised drug rehabilitation program and are no longer engaging in the illegal use of drugs, or have otherwise been rehabilitated successfully and are no longer engaging in such use; (2) are participating in a supervised rehabilitation program and are no longer engaging in such use; or (3) are erroneously regarded as engaging in such use, but are not engaging in such use.

The Tenth Circuit admitted it was defining for the first time the scope of what “currently engaging” means. The district court had concluded Mr. Mauerhan failed to qualify for ADA protection when he reapplied for work, as he had abstained from illegal drugs for only one month; one month was, in the district court’s view, too short to be considered “not engaging in illegal drug use.”

The Tenth Circuit agreed with Mr. Mauerhan that one month of sobriety was not insufficient per se under the ADA, but agreed with Wagner that Mr. Mauerhan did not qualify for the safe harbor protections of the ADA. In so ruling, the Tenth Circuit acknowledged that no sister circuit courts used a bright-line rule for when an individual is no longer “currently” using drugs. Some courts require an employee to have refrained from drug use for a “significant” period of time. Others say the drug use must be sufficiently recent to justify the employer’s recent belief that the drug abuse remains an ongoing problem. Another circuit defines “currently” to mean a periodic or ongoing activity that has not permanently ended. The legislative history of the ADA also indicates a rule establishing a firm cutoff for protection is not appropriate.

As a result, the Tenth Circuit concluded that an employee is not protected under the ADA solely based on the number of days or weeks that have passed since the employee last illegally used drugs. Instead, it adopted the Fifth Circuit’s test that an individual is currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs if “the drug use was sufficiently recent to justify the employer’s reasonable belief that the drug abuse remained an ongoing problem.” Mere participation in a rehab program is not enough, although it helps bring the drug user closer to being protected. Rather, the individual must also be no longer engaging in drug use for a sufficient period of time that the drug use is no longer an ongoing problem. The court explained that, when an individual has not permanently ended his or her use of drugs, the drug use invariably is an ongoing problem. Certainly the longer employees refrain from drug use, the more likely they are to be protected under the ADA. Nonetheless, each case must be decided on its own basis, based on a variety of factors, such as the severity of the employee’s addiction, relapse rates for whatever drugs were used, the level of responsibility entrusted to the employee, the employer’s applicable job and performance requirements, the level of competence ordinarily required to adequately perform the job, and the employee’s past performance record. All of these factors assist the employer (and a court if a lawsuit develops) in determining whether it can reasonably conclude the employee’s substance abuse prohibits the employee from performing the essential job duties. As a result, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Mr. Maueghan’s claims. Mauerhan v. Wagner Corp., Nos. 09-4179 & 4185 (10th Cir. April 19, 2011).

Applying the Lessons of Maughan to Your Workplace

The Maueghan case gives employers some confidence that employees who have been recently released from a rehab program probably will not be considered former drug users entitled to the protections of the ADA. The more time that goes by, the more likely the employee will be thought of as a “former” user. However, don’t forget that other laws or approaches can come into play. For instance, although the Maueghan case did not involve a claim under the FMLA, remember the FMLA regards drug addiction as a serious medical condition for which an employer should allow medical leave and a right to return to work (under certain circumstances). In addition, remember that nothing in the ADA prevents an employer from disciplining or terminating an employee for drug-related misconduct. Given how complicated these situations can be, reach out to your attorney if in doubt, before making a move. It may save you a lot of headaches – and perhaps a hangover – in the long run.

For more information on this case or arbitration law in general, please contact Jude Biggs at jbiggs@hollandhart.com.

This article is posted with permission from Colorado Employment Law Letter, which is published by M. Lee Smith Publishers LLC. For more information, go to www.hrhero.com.

March 21, 2011

YOU JUST MIGHT FIND . . . YOU GET WHAT YOU NEED – A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO FINDING AND MANAGING DISABILITY ACCOMMODATIONS

By John M. Husband and Bradford J. Williams

After two decades of fairly predictable defense verdicts premised upon threshold coverage issues under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”) has upended the playing field. With the ADAAA, proposed regulations, and emergent case law now defining “disability” into virtual irrelevance, the battleground for disability discrimination claims has shifted to the issues of: (1) “qualified individual” with a disability; (2) “reasonable accommodation” and “undue hardship;” and (3) the motivation behind challenged employment actions.

A recent paper prepared for the American Bar Association’s 4th Annual Section of Labor & Employment Law Conference by Holland & Hart attorneys John M. Husband and Bradford J. Williams outlines the nature and scope of the ADA’s coverage and protections; surveys changes made by the ADAAA, proposed regulations, and emergent case law; and describes innovative methods employers are using to facilitate the interactive process. The paper also highlights specific coverage and accommodation issues arising in the context of mental impairments.

To read the paper, please visit: http://www.hollandhart.com/articles/YouJustMightFindYouGetWhatYouNeed.pdf.

For more information about the authors, please visit: John Husband or Bradford J. Williams