Blog - Decatur Legal -

ADA Doesn’t Cover Alcoholic Driver

In an opinion issued this week regarding alcoholism as it relates to an ADA claim, the Eleventh Circuit of Appeals found in favor of the employer. From 2003 until 2010, Sakari Jarvela was employed as a truck driver for Crete Carrier Corporation. After he returned from FMLA leave for treatment of his alcoholism, Crete terminated Jarvela’s employment. The primary issue presented to the appellate court was whether or not Crete’s decision to terminate Jarvela’s was lawful under ADA guidelines.

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a plaintiff must establish three things: (1) he is disabled; (2) he is a qualified individual; and (3) he suffered unlawful discrimination because of his disability. In this action, the issue of Jarvela’s status as a qualified individual was a point of contention.

Pursuant to ADA guidelines, a qualified individual is one who “satisfies the requisite skill, experience, education and other job-related requirements of the employment position such individual holds or desires and with, or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of such position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m). The trucking company’s job description for the position Jarvela held reads in part, an essential function of the job is that the employee meets the qualifications as a commercial driver as set forth by DOT regulations and Crete’s company policy.

The Department of Labor’s guidelines set forth that a person who suffers from a current clinical diagnosis of alcoholism is not medically qualified to drive a commercial truck. In addition, the DOL states that the employer has the burden, ” to ensure that an employee meets all qualifications.” In it’s company policy, Crete prohibits the employment of anyone that has been diagnosed with alcoholism within the past five years.

Under the Family Leave Medical Leave Act, it is unlawful to retaliate against an employee that takes leave under FMLA. Attorneys for Jarvela argued that he was terminated as a form of retaliation. Crete argued that based on its established policy, the company would have terminated Jarvela’s employment even if he had not taken FMLA leave.

For the above described, the appellate court affirmed a lower court’s decision in favor of the employer.

If you or someone you know thinks they have experienced wrongful termination due to an ADA claim, the team at Radford & Keebaugh can help. Contact us by phone at (678) 369-3609or use our contact form.

The Central Park Five Settle with NYC for $40 million

As detailed in this article, five men falsely convicted of the infamous Central Park rape have reached a $40 million settlement with New York City.

Amid racial tension and unrest in NYC, on April 19, 1989, a female jogger was brutally beaten and raped in Central Park. In efforts to curb the city’s outrage over the horrific crime, city officials were in a frenzy to find and punish those responsible. The night of the attack, police received reports of “wolf packs” made up of black and latino teens roaming Central Park. Five teenage boys were arrested and later convicted of the crime. Then Mayor Ed Koch called the attack “the crime of the century,” and Donald Trump started an intensive campaign for the death penalty to be reinstated.

Throughout the criminal process, the five men maintained their innocence and alleged police railroaded them during their interrogations. The men were eventually found guilty of the attack. Four were in prison just under seven years, the fifth served almost thirteen years. After an incarcerated career criminal confessed to the crime and DNA evidence was provided to substantiate his claim, the five men were exonerated.

In a response to the settlement reached between the parties, Senator Bill Perkins stated, “This chapter of our racist history needs to be closed and never repeated again.”

If you or someone you know believes they have been the victim of a false arrest or malicious prosecution, the team at Radford & Keebaugh can help. Contact us by phone at (678) 369-3609 or use our contact form.

Family With Service Dog Is Denied Hotel Reservation

Wherever Beau goes, a Golden Retriever named Chip is always in tow. Beau has a rare form epilepsy and is prone to seizures. Chip is Beau’s service dog, alerting others as to when Beau is in need of medical attention. Service dogs are covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act and as such businesses are required to make necessary accommodations for the service animals and their owners.

As described in this article, Beau and his family made a one night stop at a hotel in Baton Rouge. Although reservations were made beforehand, the hotel received an email from the hotel stating that because of unforeseen circumstances, the hotel would be unable to accommodate the family, further elaborating that Best Western isn’t pet friendly.

A front desk employee told the family that she was aware of the law, but could not go against the owner’s orders. Beau’s mom, an attorney that represents children with special needs, told reporters that the corporate office contacted her a week after the incident and offered to honor the reservation. Her response, “I’ve already booked with another hotel that’s understanding and happy to follow the law. I don’t want to go to a hotel where I have to force them to follow the law.”

If you or someone you know has been discriminated against because of a disability, the team at Radford & Keebaugh can help. Contact us by phone at (678) 369-3609 or use our contact form.

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Whistleblower in Retaliation Case

In a decision issued on June 19, 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a public employee who was terminated after he testified in a case of corruption at Central Alabama Community College. Edward Lane worked as the Director of the college’s Community Intensive Training for Youth (CITY) program . While conducting an audit, Lane discovered that a state representative, Susan Schmitz, was on the program’s payroll despite the fact she had not done any work for the program.

As detailed in this npr article, at the same time the FBI was investigating Schmitz, CITY was experiencing budget concerns. After Lane testified against Schmitz, Central Alabama Community College president Steve Franks terminated Lane’s employment with the college. Under the guise of budget cuts, Franks terminated an additional 28 employees and two days later rehired all but two, of which Lane was one of the two.

In a suit claiming that Franks had violated his First Amendment protections, Lane named Franks in his individual and official capacity as president of the school. Two lower courts found in favor of Franks, stating that Lane acted in his official capacity in terminating Schmitz and could not claim protection under the First Amendment.

In its opinion issued today, the Supreme Court found in favor of Lane, stating that he testified “as a citizen on a matter of public concern.” In reference to Lane’s trial testimony, the court called it “a quintessential example of citizen speech for the simple reason that anyone who testifies in court bears an obligation, to the court and society at large, to the tell the truth.”

If you or someone you know believes they have been retaliated against and/or wrongfully terminated, the team at Radford & Keebaugh can help. Contact us by phone at (678) 369-3609 or use our contact form.

DMV forces gender non-conforming teen to remove makeup before taking his photo, with First Amendment implications

After successfully completing his driver’s license test, a South Carolina teen was met with opposition when it came time to take his photograph. As detailed in this Washington Post article, Chase Culpepper, 16, identifies as a gender nonconforming teen, wearing makeup on a consistent basis. Before taking his photograph, the Department of Motor Vehicles insisted that the boy remove his makeup.

Culpepper stated, “She said that I could not wear a disguise to take my photo, and according to her, me wearing makeup would be a disguise and that I did not look like a boy should.”

When asked about the incident, a spokesman for the DMV referred to this 2009 policy, “At no time will an applicant be photographed when it appears the he or she is purposely altering his or her appearance so that the photo would misrepresent his or her identity.” Such policies are put in place to prevent criminal activity, the DMV making exception for religious and medical reasons.

In a letter addressed to the Anderson DMV, Executive Director of the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund, Michael Silverman wrote in part, “Chase’s freedom to express his gender should not be restricted by DMV staff. He is entitled to be who he is and to express that without interference form government actors. Forcing Chase to remove his makeup prior to taking his driver’s license photo restricts his free speech rights in violation of state and federal constitutional protections.”

If you or someone you know believes that their constitutional rights have been violated, the team at Radford & Keebaugh can help. Contact us by phone at (678) 369-3609 or use our contact form.