Under what circumstances is an employer required to make a reasonable accommodation for a disabled individual quizlet?

Recommended textbook solutions

Consumer Behavior: Buying, Having, Being

13th EditionMichael R Solomon

449 solutions

Human Resource Management

15th EditionJohn David Jackson, Patricia Meglich, Robert Mathis, Sean Valentine

249 solutions

Principles of Economics

8th EditionN. Gregory Mankiw

1,335 solutions

Politics in States and Communities

15th EditionSusan A. MacManus, Thomas R. Dye

177 solutions

State and Local Government
Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services
Title II of the ADA prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in all programs, activities, and services of public entities. It applies to all state and local governments, their departments and agencies, and any other instrumentalities or special purpose districts of state or local governments. It clarifies the requirements of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, for public transportation systems that receive federal financial assistance, and extends coverage to all public entities that provide public transportation, whether or not they receive federal financial assistance. It establishes detailed standards for the operation of public transit systems, including commuter and intercity rail (e.g., AMTRAK).

Public Accomodations
Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities
This title prohibits private places of public accommodation from discriminating against individuals with disabilities. Examples of public accommodations include privately-owned, leased or operated facilities like hotels, restaurants, retail merchants, doctor's offices, golf courses, private schools, day care centers, health clubs, sports stadiums, movie theaters, and so on. This title sets the minimum standards for accessibility for alterations and new construction of facilities. It also requires public accommodations to remove barriers in existing buildings where it is easy to do so without much difficulty or expense. This title directs businesses to make "reasonable modifications" to their usual ways of doing things when serving people with disabilities. It also requires that they take steps necessary to communicate effectively with customers with vision, hearing, and speech disabilities. This title is regulated and enforced by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Sets with similar terms

name that case:
The 4 Plaintiffs were prison corrections officers who claimed that they had various impairments that prevented them from having direct contact with inmates.

Plaintiff 1 suffered severe neck and back injuries during a training exercise and upon return to work after 1 year, was advised by his doctor to have no direct contact with inmates due to a risk of subsequent injury and permanent paralysis.
Plaintiff 2 suffered life-threatening injuries during an altercation with an inmate and upon return to work after 1 year, was advised by his doctor to avoid another confrontation with an inmate.
Plaintiff 3 had a toe amputated and Plaintiff 4 had displaced vertebra, and their doctors also restricted them to no direct inmate contact.
For several years, the prison assigned the 4 Plaintiffs to the control room (which was considered "light duty"), where they monitored video terminals, operated a computer and answered the phone. Control room personnel are not required to leave the control room except in extreme emergencies. In 1990, the Defendant became the new warden and discovered that a number of corrections officers had been on light duty for many years. The Plaintiffs informed the Defendant that their impairments were permanent and that no reasonable accommodation would allow them to have direct inmate contact. The Defendant determined that direct inmate contact is an "essential function" of the CO position.

The Defendant placed the Plaintiffs on medical leave for nine months during which time the County provided assistance in finding other County jobs, which proved unsuccessful. The Defendant then offered the Plaintiffs non-CO support positions at full CO salary. The Plaintiffs rejected these offers due to the possibility these positions might involve direct inmate contact.

The Plaintiffs were terminated and then filed suit alleging violation of ADA seeking reinstatement as COs with accommodation (permanent assignment to control room).

US District Court:
Held that the Plaintiffs were not "otherwise qualified" for the CO position because direct inmate contact is an essential duty, and held for the Defendant. The Plaintiffs appealed.

US Court of Appeals (9th Circuit):
The 2nd element of a prima facia case requires that the Plaintiffs must be "otherwise qualified (with or without reasonable accommodation) to perform the essential functions" of a corrections officer position.

Issue: Is direct inmate contact in a prison an essential, or merely peripheral, function of a corrections officer position?

The Defendant, and the written job description, identified direct inmate contact as a fundamental duty of the position. Other COs testified that jail safety was jeopardized by the Plaintiffs' inability to respond to emergencies. No accommodation would allow the Plaintiffs to have direct inmate contact, which is an essential function. The Plaintiffs are not "otherwise qualified."

Held: Affirmed for the Defendant.

Which of the following is a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act quizlet?

What does it mean to work with or without reasonable accommodation?