Plaintiffs asserting a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) must walk a fine line.
On the one hand, they must show that they have a “disability” within the meaning of the statute. That means they generally must prove the existence of a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits at least one major life activity.
In many cases, employers have successfully defended ADA claims by convincing the court that the plaintiff’s ailment or condition is not serious enough to qualify as a “disability” under the law. It’s a particularly convenient argument for employers; when it succeeds, the question of whether prohibited discrimination took place is never reached.
So on the one hand, plaintiffs must be careful to plead the existence of an ailment or condition that is serious enough to qualify as a disability.
But in doing so, there is a dangerous pitfall for plaintiffs to avoid: pleading the existence of an ailment or condition that is so serious that it renders them unqualified.
That scenario has been far less common. But it still happens, as it did in a recent case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Jeffrey Jessup became a regional sales manager for a subsidiary of the Barnes Group in 2000. He later became a business development manager for another Barnes subsidiary. Jessup said he experienced significant stress in that role.
In 2016, Jessup experienced a panic attack. Afterward, he asked for a leave...
The Presidency has dismissed Oyo State Governor Seyi Makinde’s claim that the Federal Government is withholding 250 billion in Nigeria LNG Limited (NLNG) dividends for each state, describing the a...