Federal Disability Discrimination Law and the Toxic Workplace: A Critique of ADA and Section 504 Case Law Addressing Impairments Caused or Exacerbated by the Work Environment

John Rumel
{"title":"Federal Disability Discrimination Law and the Toxic Workplace: A Critique of ADA and Section 504 Case Law Addressing Impairments Caused or Exacerbated by the Work Environment","authors":"John Rumel","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2771316","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines a line of cases addressing the toxic workplace under the ADA and Section 504, which hold that, where an impairment is caused solely by the work environment and substantially limits major life activities other than working, the question of whether a worker is disabled must be evaluated under so-called foreclosure or class-based analysis. The article discusses the framework for traditional disability discrimination analysis, and then tracks the line of cases deviating from the traditional analysis. Ultimately, the article rejects the holding in these cases, demonstrating that the courts’ focus on causation (a) runs contrary to Congressional intent, (b) is illogical and improperly requires additional issues of proof, and (c) prematurely truncates ADA and Section 504 analysis by resolving cases at the disability stage and not evaluating reasonable accommodation issues. The article concludes that the appropriate fix should come from future judicial decisions, not Congress.","PeriodicalId":82640,"journal":{"name":"Santa Clara law review","volume":"51 1","pages":"515"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Santa Clara law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2771316","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This article examines a line of cases addressing the toxic workplace under the ADA and Section 504, which hold that, where an impairment is caused solely by the work environment and substantially limits major life activities other than working, the question of whether a worker is disabled must be evaluated under so-called foreclosure or class-based analysis. The article discusses the framework for traditional disability discrimination analysis, and then tracks the line of cases deviating from the traditional analysis. Ultimately, the article rejects the holding in these cases, demonstrating that the courts’ focus on causation (a) runs contrary to Congressional intent, (b) is illogical and improperly requires additional issues of proof, and (c) prematurely truncates ADA and Section 504 analysis by resolving cases at the disability stage and not evaluating reasonable accommodation issues. The article concludes that the appropriate fix should come from future judicial decisions, not Congress.
联邦残疾歧视法和有毒的工作场所:对《美国残疾人法》和第504节判例法的批评,涉及由工作环境引起或加剧的损害
本文研究了一系列根据《美国残疾人法》和第504条处理有毒工作场所的案例,该案例认为,如果损害完全由工作环境引起,并且实质上限制了工作以外的主要生活活动,那么工人是否残疾的问题必须根据所谓的丧失抵押品赎回权或基于类别的分析进行评估。本文首先探讨了传统残疾歧视分析的框架,然后追溯了偏离传统分析的案例路线。最终,本文拒绝了这些案件的判决,表明法院对因果关系的关注(a)与国会的意图背道而驰,(b)不合逻辑且不恰当地要求额外的证据问题,以及(c)过早地截断了ADA和第504节的分析,因为在残疾阶段解决案件,而没有评估合理的便利问题。文章的结论是,适当的解决办法应该来自未来的司法裁决,而不是国会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书