On June 30, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to weigh in on whether gender dysphoria can qualify as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), allowing to stand the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Williams v. Kincaid, which extended ADA protection to transgender people experiencing gender dysphoria.
As the first federal appellate decision of its kind, Williams had — and will continue to have — a significant impact on employers (covered by Title I of the ADA), and places of public accommodations (covered by Title III of the ADA).
As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: May is Mental Health Awareness Month, and employers are taking the opportunity to examine their policies and procedures around employee mental health.
Epstein Becker Green attorney Shira M. Blank tells us more about the role employers can play in promoting and supporting mental health in the workplace.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently published updated guidance titled, “Hearing Disabilities in the Workplace and the Americans with Disabilities Act” (the Guidance), explaining how the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applies to job applicants and employees with hearing disabilities. The Guidance provides several new and updated examples regarding medical information employers may request and use, and reasonable accommodations for hearing disabilities that reflect technological and medical advancements since the EEOC issued its initial guidance in 2014.
On August 16, 2022, in Williams v. Kincaid, the Fourth Circuit held that gender dysphoria can qualify as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”). This is the first federal appellate decision which extends the ADA’s protections to transgender people experiencing gender dysphoria and it will have a significant impact on all entities covered by the ADA, including employers (covered by Title I of the ADA), and public accommodations (covered by Title III of the ADA). Prior to this holding, several of the district courts have come down both ways on the issue.
As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, we focus on the uptick in requests for remote work as a reasonable accommodation during COVID-19 and what employers should consider when addressing them.
Remote Work and Reasonable Accommodations
A recent Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) disability discrimination lawsuit shows the agency is closely watching and is interested in litigating cases where an employer fails to provide employees with reasonable accommodations in connection with requests for remote work during the pandemic. As these requests continue ...
Last week, in Winegard v. Newsday LLC, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued a decision that may finally tee up the issue of website accessibility to be directly addressed by the Second Circuit and provided businesses without a brick and mortar presence with unexpected relief by dismissing a serial plaintiff’s putative class action lawsuit alleging that a newspaper’s failure to provide closed captions of online videos for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“Title III” or ...
After keeping us waiting with baited breath for several years, the Eleventh Circuit finally broke its silence – issuing its long-anticipated ruling in Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, holding that websites are not covered as places of public accommodation under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“Title III” or “ADA”). In doing so, the Court reversed and vacated the district court’s decision finding that defendant, Winn-Dixie Stores, violated Title III by failing to maintain a website that is accessible to individuals, who are blind or have low vision.
As summer kicks into high gear, and the Americans with Disabilities Act's 30th anniversary looms large at the end of this month, businesses in many jurisdictions are in the process of gradually reopening to the public.
And if the long and difficult spring wasn't trying enough, businesses now face yet another challenge — balancing maintaining the safety of employees and patrons against complying with Title III of the ADA, and applicable state and local laws, which can significantly vary depending on the jurisdiction.
While in many ways the world keeps changing, some things never ...
For businesses growing weary of the seemingly perpetual wave of serial ADA claims (e.g., website accessibility; gift card accessibility), thanks to recent a decision issued by a federal judge in the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of New York (“EDNY”), some may believe that “Christmas came early.” Last week, EBG achieved an impressive victory, obtaining a complete dismissal of a serial plaintiff’s class action complaint in the case Castillo v. The John Gore Organization.
In Castillo, plaintiff, a King’s County resident, who asserted that she has ...
While the seemingly endless wave of website accessibility cases filed by serial plaintiffs shows no signs of abating (a situation not helped by the United States’ Supreme Court’s denial of Domino’s Petition for Certiorari last month), those who follow accessibility law and the businesses who have been deeply affected by the relentless barrage of serial plaintiffs’ claims, have been waiting for the inevitable “next big thing” that the plaintiff’s bar would pursue en masse under Title III of the ADA.
On Thursday, October 24, we learned the answer when a new wave of ...
Launched more than a decade ago, the #MeToo movement made its way into the national (and international) conversation in 2017, and, by 2018, the movement had such momentum that it spurred a cornucopia of new state laws. One of these new laws, which became effective July 11, 2018, is a New York State statute that prohibits employers from requiring employees to submit sexual harassment claims to mandatory arbitration. This new law is codified in Section 7515 of the Civil Practice Law & Rules of the State of New York (“C.P.L.R.”), entitled “Mandatory arbitration clauses; ...
While businesses have long grown weary of the plaintiff bar’s seemingly endless stream of website accessibility lawsuits, it appears that judges in the SDNY may be increasingly feeling the same way. For the second time this spring, following on the back of the decision in Mendez v. Apple, a judge in the SDNY, in the case of Diaz v. The Kroger Co., 18-cv-7953 (KPF),has granted a business’ motion to dismiss a website accessibility lawsuit. While decided on multiple grounds, the Court’s decision is primarily based on mootness, providing businesses who have already taken the ...
It is no secret that businesses have long been awaiting a court decision that would help stem the surging tide of website accessibility cases – over a thousand of which have been filed in the Southern District of New York over the last two years. While the S.D.N.Y.’s recent decision dismissing a website accessibility complaint in Himelda Mendez v. Apple, Inc., 18-cv-07550 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y. March 28, 2019) may not have gone as far as businesses would have hoped, it is nonetheless an important victory. Ideally, by requiring greater effort from the plaintiff’s bar to successfully ...
As expected given the extreme volume of website accessibility lawsuits filed over the last few years, in the first few weeks of the new year, United States’ Circuit courts have finally begun to weigh in on the law as it pertains to the accessibility of websites and mobile applications, and the results are generally disappointing for businesses.
The U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") has long taken the position that Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“Title III”, “ADA”) applies to both websites and mobile apps, however, its withdrawal of Advanced ...
This issue of Take 5 encapsulates the incredible breadth of societal changes and challenges facing the entire retail workplace. The topics addressed below reflect a microcosm of the many issues currently facing our overall society, covering growing political activism in the workplace, increasing expectations to accommodate religious beliefs, otherwise outrageous employee speech that may very well enjoy protection under the law, and the ever-increasing requirements for criminal background checks enacted piecemeal by states and cities. These extremely topical subjects ...
Employers often struggle to provide employees with their requested accommodations and to comply with disability laws while still effectively running their business. This struggle has been compounded with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s aggressive pursuit of litigation in this area in recent years. A New York federal court recently weighed in on the issue in Kelly v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., 15 Civ. 6309 (DLC), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43485 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2017), holding that an employer is only required to provide an employee with a “plainly ...
In the new issue of Take 5, our colleagues examine important and evolving issues confronting owners, operators, and employers in the hospitality industry:
- Avoiding “Perfectly Clear” Successor Status When Acquiring a Property with a Union Workforce Now Requires Greater Vigilance
- Restaurant Manager Misclassification Complaints Highlight Important Defense Strategies for Hospitality Owner/Operators
- Buyer Beware: Purchasing Assets from a Unionized Employer May Come with a Nasty Withdrawal Liability Surprise
- San Francisco Releases Generative AI Guidelines for City Workers
- Video: SECURE 2.0 Act - Navigating New Retirement Plan Provisions in 2024 - Employment Law This Week
- Updated for 2024: Epstein Becker Green’s Free Wage-Hour App
- Video: California’s Non-Compete Notice Deadline Approaches, California Workplace Violence Regulations, Estrada Decision Keeps Door Open for PAGA Challenges - Employment Law This Week
- Insurers in the Crosshairs: New York Targets Consumer Data and AI-Infused Insurance Underwriting and Pricing