The Dallas Hospitality Employment Lawyer Blog

In enacting the amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act, Congress made clear its intent that the question of whether an individual's impairment is a disability under the statute should not demand extensive analysis.  Congress also undeniably broadened the definition and coverage of the term "disability." Many employment practitioners interpreted the amendments to mean that courts would no longer examine whether a plaintiff was actually disabled, and instead, would focus the analysis on whether there was discrimination in the adverse employment action. In a decision issued on November 6, 2013, the Fifth Circuit confirmed that a plaintiff bringing disability discrimination and failure to accommodate claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended (ADAAA), is still required to prove he or she is disabled to prevail on the claims.   See Neely v. PSEG Texas, Limited Partnership, et al. , No. 12-51074. In Neely , the plaintiff appealed a ju...

Yesterday, in a clear expression of the "Don't Mess with Texas" mentality, the State of Texas filed suit against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) challenging the EEOC's April 2012  Enforcement Guidance titled, "Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."   See State of Texas v. EEOC , Case No. 5:13-CV-00255-C, In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Lubbock Division. According to the Guidance, which reflects the EEOC's interpretation of Title VII, hiring policies or practices that categorically exclude all convicted felons create an unlawful "disparate impact" under Title VII, and employers must conduct "individualized assessments" of convicted felons' job applications.  If an employer refuses to hire a convicted felon, the employer has the burden to prove the felony disqualification is "job re...

A "reasonable accommodation" under the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended (ADA), should assist an employee with performing the essential functions of the job, right? Not really, according to the Fifth Circuit's recent opinion, Feist v. State of Louisiana , No. 12-31065, issued on September 16, 2013.  In that case, an employee claimed her employer discriminated against her based on a disability by declining to provide a free, on-site parking space to accommodate her osteoarthritis.  The employer's rationale was that the denial of the parking space did not limit the employee's ability to perform the essential functions of the job.  The District Court agreed with the employer, but the Fifth Circuit vacated the decision on this issue and remanded the case. Why is this decision so interesting? Because it appears to contradict older, but not yet superseded, Guidance issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Specifically, the EE...