Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Archives

Jury finds for disabled veteran in ADA discrimination trial against Clayton County Sheriff’s Office

An African-American woman with glasses and braids testifies in court. — Brittani Williams testifies in the employment discrimination trial, Williams v. Allen. Illustration by Callia Alandete. All rights reserved.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

On May 19, 2023, after a three-day trial, a jury found that the Sheriff’s Office of Clayton County, Georgia, discriminated and retaliated against a disabled veteran after she notified her supervisors of her diagnosis of PTSD. The case was filed in 2019 under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. The jury awarded the plaintiff back pay equivalent to two years salary, plus compensatory damages, for a total verdict of $202,811.96. The case, captioned Williams v. Allen was tried before Hon. J. P. Boulee in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Ms. Williams was represented by Regan Keebaugh and James Radford of the Decatur, Georgia law firm Radford & Keebaugh, LLC.

Brittani Williams is a veteran of the U.S. Army Reserves. She had been an employee of the Sheriff’s Office since 2012 and was working as a Sheriff’s Services Clerk. In 2019, after she was transferred from the day shift to the night shift, she sent her supervisors a letter from her providers at the Department of Veteran’s Affairs, notifying them that the shift change may cause her to experience increased symptoms associated with her PTSD. Her immediate supervisors were all willing to work with her, and one gentleman volunteered to escort her to her vehicle in the evening. However, when former Sheriff Victor Hill was informed of the request, he wrote “do a fit for duty status and release from employment.”

At trial, the Sheriff’s Office argued that Ms. Williams’ disability rendered her unqualified for the job, citing her VA disability rating. They also claimed that Ms. Williams was terminated for coming to work one day with her hair dyed red.

However, the jury rejected each of these arguments.

Former Sheriff Victor Hill did not testify at trial. On the day before trial, he reported to federal prison in Arkansas. On October 26, 2022, former Sheriff Hill was convicted in federal court of six counts of willfully depriving pre-trial detainees in his custody of their constitutional rights by strapping them into a restraint chair, resulting in serious bodily harm on each occasion. He was sentenced to 18 months in prison. The jury was presented with Hill’s videotaped deposition, however.

The jury heard testimony from Clayton County Director of Human Resources Pamela Ambles, who urged Hill to seek accommodations for Ms. Williams under the ADA rather than carrying out a “fitness for duty” process. The jury also heard from several of Ms. Williams’ supervisors, who testified that she was a high-performing employee, and that it was no burden to escort her to her vehicle. The witnesses described a heavy-handed, top-down leadership style from former Sheriff Hill, in which people were afraid to make recommendations regarding employment issues for fear of retribution.

“This was a hard fought case in which the Sheriff’s Office filed numerous motions to try and prevent a jury from ever hearing the evidence,” said Regan Keebaugh, who served as lead counsel in the case. “We fought many battles along the way, from her unemployment benefits appeal all the way through to this trial.”

“It was an honor to represent this veteran. Hearing the jury’s verdict was such a proud moment, and it makes the long hours and stress of trial worth it,” said partner James Radford.

Is She-Hulk the victim of employment discrimination?

Jenn Walters a.k.a. She Hulk in her legal attire. — An excellent female lawyer fired for being green, and for being liked too much by juries? Highly suspicious.

In Episode 2, Season 1 of the popular Disney + series “She Hulk: Attorney-At-Law,” our hero, Jennifer Walters, is terminated from her job as an Assistant District Attorney after she is infected with gamma radiation and develops the powers of a Hulk. The DA’s Office’s rationale for Jenn’s termination is a shaky one–a case where Walters is lead counsel is declared a mistrial after she saves the jurors from a super-villain and the judge decides they will be biased in her favor. After she is canned by the DA, she applies for numerous positions at private law firms, only to be rejected time and time again.

The obvious question is–why? Walters is a great lawyer and, beyond that, is beloved as a super-hero by the community. So, why are her prospects so slim? Is she the victim of employment discrimination?

Legally speaking, the answer may be yes. Two laws are at stake here.

First is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the “based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.” Jenn Walters is the only green member of the bar, and she can’t get a job despite her immense qualifications. While there is little precedent for a case of discrimination on the basis of such a non-traditional color, She-Hulk presents a strong case–it wasn’t until she turned green that her prospects for employment narrowed.

As employment discrimination attorneys, we would also consider whether there was discrimination on the basis of sex here. Women are still under-represented in the legal profession. If Jenn Walters came to our office, we would ask questions such as: have there been any male ADA’s whose cases have resulted in mistrials? Were they summarily dismissed from the job? Would you terminate Captain America, Iron Man, or a male superhero on the basis that jurors just liked them too much? To terminate one of your few female attorneys, on such dubious grounds, is inherently suspicious.

The second law applicable here is the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits employment discrimination against any “qualified person with a disability.”

Jenn Walters begins to turn green as she transforms into the Hulk. — Transforming into the Hulk is not a pleasant experience.

A “disability” is defined by the law as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities or major bodily functions. It would seem at first blush that a superhuman, whose physical abilities are enhanced, rather than limited, would not qualify under the law. However, we must dig deeper into the statute.

“Major life activities” under the law include: “caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working.”

“Major bodily functions” under the law include: “functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions.”

“Normal cell growth” is an obvious one here, as the gamma radiation to which the Hulks were exposed causes their cells to grow massively and suddenly in size–hardly “normal.”

Beyond that, however, we have to consider the negative side effects of Hulking out. In addition to creating super-strength, the Hulk transformation can cause negative side effects, include sudden mood changes and physical pain. In other words, the experience of becoming a Hulk is a physically and mentally challenging one. (For more, see “10 Harsh Realities of Being the Hulk.”)

According to Science World, exposure to gamma radiation–the source of the Hulks’ power–causes numerous side effects, including “mak[ing] people sick with headaches, fatigue or nausea. It can also cause skin reddening and destroy bone marrow cells and the cells lining the gut.”

In a nutshell, She-Hulk has numerous valid claims for employment discrimination. If she contacted our office regarding her legal rights, we would certainly look at her case closely, and we would be glad to have her as a client.

If you enjoyed this post, you might also enjoy Is Matt Murdock an Ethical Lawyer?

Federal Court of Appeals rules in favor of disabled veteran in parking accommodations case

In the case of Pamela Wilson v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, a disabled veteran employed by the VA was denied permission to park on-site at the Agency’s Atlanta, Georgia offices on Clairmont Rd., an accommodation she sought to address mobility impairments. The district court denied Ms. Wilson’s claims under the ADA. Represented by the attorneys of Radford & Keebaugh, LLC, Ms. Wilson appealed to the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Today, the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Ms. Wilson on her failure-to-accommodate claims, reversing the district court’s order.

The 11th Circuit’s order is here: 11th Circuit Order – Wilson v. VA

You can listen to R&K attorney James Radford’s presentation at oral argument before the Eleventh Circuit here:

Additional detail on the case:

Ms. Wilson is a service-connected military veteran who suffers from chronic degenerative disc disease, spinal stenosis, facet joint disease, multiple herniated discs, and partial paralysis in both feet. Her disabilities cause functional impairments to her ability to walk, stand, and bend. In February 2009, she was hired as a probationary Veteran Claims Examiner (“VCE”) for the Education Division of the Department of Veterans Affairs (“Defendant” or “VA”). Her work site was the VA Regional Office (“VARO”) in Decatur, Georgia. There was an on- site parking deck at VARO.

However, probationary employees were told not to park there. Instead, they were told to park in an off-site deck, nearly one mile from the work site, and take a shuttle or walk to the VARO. Ms. Wilson could not physically walk the distance, and the shuttle was often not available when she needed it. It was difficult for her to board, and she would often have to stand because it was so crowded. In the first several months of her employment, Ms. Wilson made numerous requests for permission to park on site. Her supervisors made no effort to assess the reasonableness of her requests, which they summarily denied.

In order to get to her work site, Ms. Wilson attempted to park in designated handicap spots on-site, or elsewhere in the on-site parking deck. Despite knowing that she had requested parking accommodations (and likely because of it), her employer issued disciplinary citations each time she parked on site. Only after Ms. Wilson filed an equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint did her supervisors request medical documentation related to her requests. Defendant ultimately terminated Ms. Wilson for “unacceptable conduct and unacceptable performance.” The documentary and testimonial evidence demonstrates that the dispositive “unacceptable” conduct was Ms. Wilson’s use of on-site parking. In her lawsuit, Ms. Wilson alleged that she was terminated for her attempt to accommodate her disability when the employer refused.

$481,000 judgment after jury trial victory for disabled Georgia State University student

In the case of R.W. vs. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, we represented a student at Georgia State University (GSU) who has a diagnosis of schizophrenia, on the mild end of the spectrum. The university required the student to undergo its “mandated risk assessment” process, and evicted him from student housing, after he refused to answer a counselor’s questions about his illness. The university later notified the student that he could not remain enrolled at the university, and would not be eligible for student housing, unless he allowed the Dean of Student’s office to monitor his psychiatric health care and verify that he was complying with all recommended treatments, including the use of psychotropic drugs. The student had not been involved in any wrongdoing but, the university contended, his refusal to answer certain questions about his illness caused them to fear that he might pose a danger. The student had no disciplinary history and had not caused any disruption on campus.

We brought suit under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act, a law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by recipients of federal funding.

On October 29, 2015, after a four-day trial, a federal jury found that GSU had discriminated against the student on the basis of his disability. Based on the evidence, the jury rejected GSU’s defense that the student posed a “direct threat” to the health or safety of others. The jury also found that GSU had acted with “deliberate indifference” to the student’s rights against discrimination and awarded him $75,000 in compensatory damages. The court also entered a permanent injunction requiring that GSU lift restrictions on the student’s eligibility for student housing. The court further ordered that the Board of Regents is liable for plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of over $406,000.

We are proud of this victory. We hope this case will have an impact on our culture’s conversation about mental illness. We hope it will encourage universities not to punish students for disclosing a mental illness and seeking treatment. Rather than improving campus safety, practices like this only isolate those with mental illness and discourages them from seeking help in the event of a crisis. We hope this result will help alleviate the fear and prejudice that is associated with mental illness.

You can view the court’s judgment below.

Judgment in R.W. v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia (GSU). October 30, 2015

And read the court’s order on attorneys fees and costs here:

Order Granting Attorneys Fees and Costs in R.W. v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia by James Radford on Scribd

Court denies immunity, finds evidence of discrimination by GSU in case of student with mental illness

We are proud to announce today’s order in the case of R.W. v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia. We brought suit on behalf of a schizophrenic student who was removed from housing and forced to comply with Georgia State University’s so-called “risk assessment” protocol after the university learned of his diagnosis. GSU sought judgment in their favor, stating that they were immune from suit and that there was insufficient evidence to show intentional discrimination.

The court has rejected those arguments. In today’s order, the court ruled that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that GSU intentionally discriminated against our client due to his disability, without evidence that he posed a threat to campus safety, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Rehabilitation Act.

This is a significant decision for students with mental health disabilities. As reported by Newsweek Magazine, college students with mental illnesses have been increasingly ostracized in recent years and treated as “threats” without any evidence that they actually pose a harm to others. We look forward to continuing to advocate for our client and ultimately to achieve justice in this matter.

Read the full order below.

R.W. v. Georgia Board of Regents – Order on Motions for Summary Judgment by James Radford