Case Analysis

 Case Analysis

The American Disability Act was enacted in 1990 under President Bush administration. The law is meant to protect people with disabilities. Civil rights are an integral component of U.S. law as they protect citizens from unfair treatment (“What Are Civil Rights? – FindLaw”, n.d.). Equal opportunity translates to housing, education, housing, and employment, to name a few. Concerning the American Disability Act equal opportunity is sought for people with both physical and mental disabilities.

The ADA Act comprises several Titles, one of which covers employment (Title 1). Other Titles include state and local government (Title 2), which seeks equality in public services. Accommodation (Title 3) seeks equality in areas such as hotels, public transport, to name a few. Telecommunications (Title 4) requires phone and internet services for people with hearing impairment as well as miscellaneous provisions (Title 5) (“What is the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)? | ADA National Network”, 2020).

Case Claims and Defense

As regards John’s case, his suing of Acme, his employer has no grounds. John sued the company for termination based on his disability. Disability, in this instance, refers to the heart condition John had characterized by a heart attack. The dismissal had nothing to do with his health and was purely based on performance. Accommodation is part of the ADA Act that John uses to sue his employer.

Working reduced hours might have been a way of the employer being accommodative of John’s disability. John worked part-time after his sick leave, which can be argued to indicate fewer work hours given to reduce workload for health reasons.

It is equally important to note that John was using non prescribed drugs. The use of the drugs could have played a part in John’s health. The supervisor indicates that John was behaving strangely before the attack. The change in behavior could also have been attributed to drug use. Strange and out of character behavior could be attributed to drug or alcohol abuse (Jensen, 2020). The supervisor, even though aware of the drugs, did not report the incident or confront John before the heart attack. John uses the ADA Act to sue the company on the grounds of discrimination under Title I. The Title outlines that an employer should not discriminate against an employee on disability grounds. For an impairment to be deemed a disability, it must fit the criteria stipulated.

Title V of the ADA Act is clear on the provisions that qualify for disability. The Title, for example, indicates that substance abuse effects do not qualify as disability (“More on Title V | Mid-Atlantic ADA Center”, 2020). In John’s case, his use of non prescribed drugs waters down his discrimination case under the ADA Act. The heart attack could have resulted from the drug use making his disability claim null and void.

Conclusion

In response to the case filed by John, the employer did not violate any law as far as the American Disabilities Act of 1990 is concerned. The case, therefore, has no merit under the Miscellaneous Provision. The provision nullifies John’s claim of disability through his use of illicit drugs. The lack of qualification as a disabled person means that the employee has no application as regards to the ADA Act suit. The employer, on the other hand, has a solid defense based on the very Act that John uses to sue. In this regard, no laws were broken by the employer.

 

Reference

Jensen, C. (2020). How to Handle Addiction in the Workplace | AllBusiness.com. Retrieved

from https://www.allbusiness.com/how-to-handle-addiction-in-the-workplace-15606952-1.html

More on Title V | Mid-Atlantic ADA Center. (2020). Retrieved 5 February 2020, from

https://www.adainfo.org/content/more-title-v

What Are Civil Rights? – FindLaw. Retrieved from https://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil-rightsoverview/what-are-civil-rights.html

What is the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)? | ADA National Network. (2020).

Retrieved from https://adata.org/learn-about-ada