5-Digit Exam Number: 07108 Course Title: Disability Discrimination Law Professor Name: Nichol & Magagna

Grade: _______ Notes:

Page 1 of 7

P is a person with a disability under the second prong of this definition. the information obtained is maintained separately from his other HR records and is kept confidential. A person with a disability is someone who either (1) has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. To establish this. etc. and may condition the offer of employment on the results of the examination only if all employees are subject to the same examination. Arline. he will also need to show that he is a qualified person with a disability. P has a strong case that he can perform the Page 2 of 7 . P will need to show (1) that he can perform the essential functions of the job (2) with or without a reasonable accommodation. He probably will not have difficulty showing that his seizures substantially limited one or more major life activities. and assuming that there were more than 4 or 5 applicants. In addition to showing that he is a person with a disability. even though he is no longer currently substantially limited in any major life activity. or (3) is regarded as having such a physical or mental impairment. Even though Arline’s tuberculosis was in remission. Here it appears that the employer’s policy violates the ADA because the medical examination was required before any offer of employment was made. (2) has a record of such impairment. P will first have to show that he is a qualified individual with a disability under § 504.5-Digit Exam Number: 07108 Course Title: Disability Discrimination Law Professor Name: Nichol & Magagna Question 1: Potential Cause of Action Against the Ohio State Police Maverick (P) has a cause of action against the Ohio State Police for their refusal to hire him under Title I of the ADA. Under § 12112(d)(3) an employer may require a medical examination after an offer is made and prior to commencement of duties. School Bd of Nassau County v. her previous hospitalization was enough to establish a record of impairment. To bring suit. Since P scored third highest on the written exam and second highest on the physical fitness test. sleeping. such as walking. Cf.

the accommodation being sought is merely a change in the employer’s hiring policy.5-Digit Exam Number: 07108 Course Title: Disability Discrimination Law Professor Name: Nichol & Magagna essential functions of the job. See Garrett. although he may fare better under the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 than he would have under the old ADA and case law. P will first need to show that he is a qualified person with a disability within the meaning of § 504. or an order to hire P. P’s diagnosis is “situational depression. In this case P will have greater difficulty meeting this burden than he had with his previous case. the definition of a person with a disability has been clarified and broadened. and transitory is defined as 6 months or less in duration. and he may have difficulty proceeding with his suit. Cause of Action Against the City of Dayton P’s potential cause of action against the City of Dayton will allege that his request for a reasonable accommodation was denied.” his condition would seem to be a transitory response to recent events. Only conditions which are transitory and minor are excluded.” While sleeping and eating are “central to the daily lives of most people. Since the employer here is the Ohio State Police. Here. If the employer was anyone other than a state government. P would probably be able to get monetary damages and possibly even punitive damages for the employer’s actions. which inhibits the major life activities of eating and sleeping. without accommodation.” so he can argue that he has a mental impairment. In Toyota v. and P would have a better chance of showing that he is a qualified person with a disability. the Eleventh Amendment will affect the types of remedies that P will be able seek. here however he will probably only be able to get injunctive relief: an a court order to cease conducting pre-offer medical examinations. Page 3 of 7 . Williams the Supreme Court narrowed the definition of “major life activity” to tasks which are “central to the daily lives of most people. Under the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. and as a result of the employer’s failure to provide the accommodation he was wrongfully terminated. Again.” and “permanent or long-term.

The employer has a strong argument that working with the dog is “an essential function of the job. With respect to his request to work as a guard without the bomb-sniffing dog. however. he was entitled to have the employer reassign him to a different job with equivalent pay. initially at least. Fedro. and that he was entitled to that position even if there were other.” Courts will usually defer to the employer in determining what the essential functions of the job are. and the facts here weigh in the employer’s favor: all of the guards work with the dogs. See. since he had been working there for a while and had. and it is probably safe to say that the heightened scent-sniffing abilities of the dog are not replaceable by mechanical means. and requiring an employer to restructure its business to accommodate P or requiring an employer to create a position that does not exist will not be held to be reasonable. the employer had a duty to then look for lower-paying jobs for reassignment before terminating him. In addition. or restructure its business. can counter-argue that under the reassignment provisions of the ADA.5-Digit Exam Number: 07108 Course Title: Disability Discrimination Law Professor Name: Nichol & Magagna Assuming P can meet the burden of showing that he is a qualified person with a disability. See Fedro v. a solid record with the employer. a switch to the day shift. In Page 4 of 7 . It is unclear whether P will prevail in this case however. and it is not reasonable to request as an accommodation that the employer create a new job for the employee that did not previously exist. since there is no indication that there are in fact other positions to reassign him to. Reno. if there were no other positions with equivalent pay. was not “reasonable. more qualified applicants seeking the job.” At the time of his request there were no openings on the day shift. Cause of Action Against Everhart Munitions It is likely that he will meet the initial burden of proving that he is a qualified person with a disability. P can then anticipate that the employer will respond by defending that the accommodation he requested. it is unlikely that the court will side with him. P.

Art Exhibits 4. event planners should be aware 1. Advertising & Tickets 2. Educational Program 8. with respect to P’s second request. However. Awards Event – Page 5 of 7 . Childrens Program 9. different treatment. Special exhibit – Art of Sunnyvale 5. Outdoor Sculpture – the city 6. Parade 10.5-Digit Exam Number: 07108 Course Title: Disability Discrimination Law Professor Name: Nichol & Magagna addition. P has a stronger case than that against the City of Dayton that he is entitled to reassignment under the ADA. but assuming that he can show that. Question 2: Generally. Barnett). he is entitled to any available opening as a fork lift driver. Music Performances 7. He will still need to show that he is qualified to drive a fork lift. the employer has a good argument that working without the dog would pose a direct threat to the safety of others given the dangerous nature of the risk of terrorist attacks on the facility. event planners should should be prepared to avoid exclusion. Shuttle Bus – is a public accommodation under Title II and must be accessible 3. and segregation vent planners should be prepareUnder Title II. even if he is not the most qualified applicant. and assuming that the reassignment does not conflict with a bona fide seniority policy or a collectively bargained-for seniority policy (see US Airways v.

5-Digit Exam Number: 07108 Course Title: Disability Discrimination Law Professor Name: Nichol & Magagna Page 6 of 7 .

5-Digit Exam Number: 07108 Course Title: Disability Discrimination Law Professor Name: Nichol & Magagna END OF EXAM Page 7 of 7 .