5 Disabilities that May Be Protected By Employment Law

Disability discrimination is where an employer refuses to acknowledge your impairment as a disability and treats you adversely based on your disability.

The type of company you work for, the number of coworkers you have, your type of disability, and the nature of your claim, will factor into which legislation may assist you in protecting your job. As legislation at the State, as well as Federal level, progressively, recognize certain impairments as a type of disability, the more employees with these disabilities are given job protection.

Did you know that employees with a disability have numerous rights?  Not only do these particular employees have rights, but also there are a set of rules that the employer must comply with in terms of accommodating the employee’s disability.  But what exactly is considered as a disability in the eyes of the law?  Is ADD considered a disability?  What about being an addict?  Or what about some conditions that are not indefinitely a physical or a mental disability such as chronic fatigue?  Is an employee with a sexual dysfunction protected under employment law?

1. Cosmetic Disfiguration?

An employee who has a cosmetic disfiguration may be categorized as having a disability. One particular piece of legislation identifies certain individuals as having a disability if he or she has an existing impairment. An existing impairment pertains to physical and/or mental deficiency that immensely restricts the individual from primary life activities. A cosmetic disfiguration would fall under the physical category.  So if an employee has a cosmetic disfiguration that limits their ability to perform life activities but can carry out their duties at work or can carry them out with reasonable accommodation, an employer must provide those adjustments.  Should an employer refuse to make reasonable adjustments for the employee, or fires the employee because they request the adjustments, that employee may have a claim for disability discrimination as well as wrongful termination.

2. Alcoholism? 

If your boss fires you based on the fact that you were an alcoholic or you are currently in recovery, you may have a claim for wrongful termination and disability discrimination.

Alcohol abuse is an addiction that many Americans struggle with today.  What seems to perpetuate the problem is when former addicts try to put their lives back together but can’t seem to live down their old habits.  An employer who treats an employee adversely based on the fact that he or she is a former alcoholic may be liable for discrimination.  For instance, if an employee suffers from particular health issues or a disability that was created by a prior addiction to alcohol, the employer must accommodate the employee within reason.  Some factors may be taken into consideration such as if the employee has been or is currently participating in a rehabilitation program or is attending a rehabilitation program and has not consumed any alcohol or drugs for a substantial amount of time.   Also, if an employee needs to take time off to receive medical treatment from a rehabilitation facility, the employer may not be able to terminate the employee for taking that time off.  For example, if an employee disclosed to their boss that he or she needed to take a period of time off to participate in drug rehabilitation, the employer might be liable if they fire the employee based on taking the time off.

The circumstances of this particular issue are crucial in determining whether or not an employer has discriminated against an employee.  It is essential to keep in mind that an employee is not automatically protected from being fired just because he or she was a former addict or that he or she has enrolled in a particular drug-treatment center.  An employee must show that he or she has been free from use for an extensive amount of time as well as the reason for mistreatment was based on the fact that he or she either was an addict and/or requested time off for treatment.

3. Sexual Dysfunction?

Under the particular legislation, in order to be considered as an employee who has a disability, it must be shown that he or she has an actual physical impairment. Remember that it may be essential to establish that the employee’s condition is debilitating in such a way that it may restrict them from a major life activity.

While it has not been ligated many times, sexual interactions may be characterized as a major life activity, thus a sexual dysfunction may be measured as a disability.  If the sexual dysfunction arises from an employee’s poor mental health, this may provide evidence to support he or she indeed has a legally recognized disability.

4. Obesity?

Whether or not obesity is considered a legally recognized impairment is an ongoing debate, but it is not totally ruled out. Factors to be taken into consideration would be what body of law the claim would fall under, possibly the cause of obesity, and the percentage of access weight in comparison to the average weight.  There have been some cases that did consider obesity to be impairing where cardiovascular issues were the source of obesity. But again, depending on the particulars of an employee’s case, obesity may be considered a protected disability in which an employee would be considered a victim of discrimination should he or she be terminated because of their diagnosis.

5. Mental impairments?

As mentioned previously, there is specific legislation in place that recognizes certain physical and mental impairments as a disability.  There is a variation of mental impairments that are recognized such as learning disabilities like dyslexia and attention deficit disorder.  Depression is also recognized in certain cases as well as obsessive-compulsive disorder.  There are also some conditions that may be recognized yet can neither be categorized as mental or physical such as chronic fatigue.

There are several mental impairments that may be acknowledged and protected under certain legislation; it mainly comes down to the individual’s circumstances and the facts of their case.  Again, in certain situations of mental impairment, the employer is obligated to make reasonable adjustments for an employee at the workplace.  Should an employee with a mental impairment find themselves being treated adversely based on their mental impairment, they may have a discrimination claim against their employer.

For more info please contact a wrongful termination lawyer same as Stevens & McMillan Employment Lawyers

More Articles about ADA and disability discrimination at the workplace:

• How The American Disability Act (ADA) has protected disabled workers?
• How ADA Can Protect Millions of American lives
• 4 Things an Employee Should Know About Filing a Disability Discrimination Claim
• 5 Important Questions Asked about Disability Discrimination and Wrongful Termination
• 5 Ways an Employer May Be Liable For Disability Discrimination
• 6 Nuances of Disability Discrimination Law in California
• 8 Things You Need To Know About Disability Discrimination
• 8 Main Disability Discrimination Questions
• 9 Things Job Hunters With a Disability Should Know

Wrongful termination settlements is said to have occurred when an employer has fired/laid off an employee in direct violation of their existing legal rights. If the wrongful termination law has been violated, the terminated employee can file his/her wrongful termonation settlements employment termination complaint with the government agencies. Alternatively, a private lawsuit can also be filed with the help of a wrongful termination Settlements lawyer.

The “At-Will” concept

All states have now adopted the doctrine of employment “at-will” to a certain degree. This means that employees can typically leave their jobs at any given time without any cause or advanced notice. In addition, it means that the employer can also typically fire / lay-off their employees at any given time without a specific reason. In many instances, employers legitimately ask employees to sign certain agreements or contracts that effectively document & enforce all the terms of this “at will” employment and this shows up in the company’s policy manuals.

The Exceptions

Of course, there are certain exceptions to the rule. Employees as well as employers are not permitted to breach the employment agreements/ contracts or even violate regulations, laws, constitutional provisions/ public policy when they are terminating employment. Exceptions such as intentional emotional distress, breach of implied contract and reliance on an employment offer do exist. “At will” employees can also be fired for certain job-related problems/ non-job-related reasons like personality conflict or the boss not liking the employee’s jokes.

These employees who have been wrongfully terminated have gone ahead and challenged the rules in court and won wrongful termination settlements and compensation. Though there is no fixed figure that can be attached to this kind of a settlement, it can sometimes be substantial. This settlement covers the lost wages and attorney’s fees & punitive damages are covered only under certain circumstances

The Right Legal Help

If a person has been wrongfully terminated and wishes to file a lawsuit against the employer, he/she will have to hire the services of a wrongful termination settlements lawyer. The person will provide the litigant all the details of this kind of filing and help with all the technicalities and legalities. Having a good lawyer can also result in a higher termination settlement and they will also be able to guide the person through the legal system. Since there are no hard and fast rules when it comes to winning a wrongful termination settlements, having the right legal help is top priority.

Call the Law Office of Stevens & McMillan Today (800) 738-3353 to get you the highest Wrongful termination settlements!

Unfortunately, sickness or injury can strike anyone at any time.  Fortunately, there are a number of laws which protect an Orange County Employee benefits attorney and allow him or her to take of time for health related issues.  Some of these laws include:

Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) – An Orange County Employee benefits attorney may take twelve workweeks of leave in a 12-month period for a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the essential functions of his or her job.

California Family Rights Act (CFRA) – An Orange County Employee benefits attorney may take twelve workweeks of leave in a 12-month period for a serious health condition including illness, injury (including on-the-job injuries), impairment, or physical or mental condition.

Pregnancy Disability Leave Law – An Orange County Employee benefits attorney disabled by pregnancy is entitled to up to four months disability leave. If the employer provides more than four months of leave for other types of temporary disabilities, the same leave must be made available to women who are disabled due to pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition.

Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) – Employers must treat pregnancy disability the same as any other disability and offer the same leave and/or accommodations that are offered to persons with other disabilities.

Americans with Disabilities Act – Subject to certain restrictions, a leave of absence may be required as a reasonable accommodation for a person with a disability.

Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) – Like the ADA, FEHA may require an employer to give a leave of absence as a reasonable accommodation for a person with a disability.

Workers’ Compensation Act – An Orange County Employee benefits attorney who suffers a work-related injury and needs time off to recover may be entitled to a leave of absence.

If you have taken a leave of absence under one of these laws and feel like you have been discriminated or retaliated against for doing so, then please contact Stevens & McMillan at (800) 738-3353 for a free consultation. This article has only touched on the general scope of the law and is for information purposes only. This article is not intended to give legal advice.

Wyatt J. Holtsclaw | Attorney

Stevens & McMillan, Orange County Employee benefits attorney

335 Centennial Way

Tustin, CA 92780

714/730-1000

714/730-1067 Facsimile

The law is an ever-evolving entity in a symbiotic relationship with its citizens; it shapes us, and we shape it. Here is the list of the most prominent court cases in the United States that have, inevitably so, shaped our lives for years to come. The Law Offices of Stevens & McMillan are forever indebted to such cases, and work to honor them everyday! For all your Employee Rights needs, give us a call at (800) 738-3353.

• Brown v. Board of Education

On May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court unanimously declared state laws that established separate public schools for black and white students unconstitutional, saying they had a detrimental effect on minority children. Though the decision helped spur the civil rights movement and paved the way for integration, it was not welcomed overnight. In 1957, Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus used the National Guard to block nine black students from entering Little Rock High School. In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace personally blocked a door at the University of Alabama to prevent two black students from enrolling. In both cases, the incidents resulted in interventions from the highest level — in Little Rock, President Dwight D. Eisenhower deployed the 101st Airborne Division to integrate the school, while in Alabama, President John F. Kennedy sent in the National Guard to remove George “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever” Wallace from the university doorway.

• Roe v. Wade

Roe v. Wade divided the country into those who believed in an unborn child’s right to life and those who believed in a woman’s right to choose. It raised issues of morality and privacy and is still hotly debated today. In the early 1970s, Norma McCorvey (alias Jane Roe) was a single Texas mother. Pregnant for a third time, McCorvey decided she did not want to bear a third child, but Texas state law prevented her from having an abortion. On Jan. 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the constitutional right to privacy extends to a woman’s decision to have an abortion. The decision came too late for Roe, who was impregnated in 1969 (she had the child and gave it up for adoption), but it guaranteed the right of women nationwide to terminate unwanted pregnancies through abortion by obliging all 50 states to legalize the divisive medical practice.

• Miranda v. Arizona

That most television-friendly of Supreme Court cases,Miranda v. Arizona, was decided in 1966. Under Chief Justice Earl Warren, the court determined 5 to 4 that the police had to follow certain procedures to ensure the protection of a criminal suspect’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The ruling included the stipulations that suspects be told they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say could be used against them and that they have the right to an attorney. Without these Miranda warnings, the court deemed, prosecutors could not use statements made by defendants under interrogation. The decision reversed the conviction of Ernesto Miranda, who had been found guilty of kidnapping and rape in Arizona after he had confessed during police questioning without being informed of his rights.

• Marbury v. Madison

Before vacating the Oval Office in March 1801, John Adams appointed a number of Federalists to judicial openings in an attempt to handicap President-elect Thomas Jefferson’s incoming Democratic-Republican Administration. But because Adams’ Secretary of State, John Marshall, failed to deliver all of the appointees’ commissions, and because Jefferson subsequently directed his new Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver the remaining notices — a number of employees were unable to assume their new positions.

One frustrated appointee, Federalist William Marbury, petitioned the Supreme Court to force Madison to deliver his commission. On Feb. 23, 1803, the court handed down a unanimous decision that Madison was not required to deliver the agreement because the law requiring such action — the Judiciary Act of 1789 — conflicted with a piece of the Constitution. Marshall, by that time Chief Justice, argued that the Judiciary Act was unconstitutional and therefore void, thus establishing the basis for judicial review and solidifying the role of checks and balances in American government.

• District of Columbia v. Heller

It had been 70 years since the Supreme Court had last tackled the central conundrum of the Second Amendment: Does the right to bear arms apply only to militias? This 2008 case specifically challenged Washington, D.C., gun-control legislation that generally prohibited carrying a pistol without a license and also required that all firearms be kept unloaded. In a split decision, the often conservative-leaning Roberts court concluded that the Second Amendment does protect an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia. It was possibly the most important government statement regarding guns in the U.S. since the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791.

• Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

In January 2010, the Supreme Court upheld the right of corporations to spend money influencing political campaigns, ruling that these entities ought to have the same First Amendment rights as individuals to engage in “political speech.” The historic — and, in some quarters, infamous —Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision fell to a tight 5-to-4 vote. Its implications are huge: superseding earlier understandings, the court deemed corporate money, funneled by lobbyists and special-interest groups into politics, equivalent to any individual donation — even though, by many people’s reckonings, a corporation with its resources and focused agenda is hardly the same thing as an individual person. President Obama, for one, was scathing about the verdict, saying “this ruling strikes at our democracy itself.” But such prominent First Amendment advocates as Floyd Abrams — often associated with defending journalists’ rights — argued vociferously that the court did the right thing by preserving the guarantees of the amendment.

• Plessy v. Ferguson

Long before Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus, Homer Plessy refused to move to a “blacks-only” railway car. Plessy, who was seven-eighths white and one-eighth African American, was arrested in accordance with Louisiana’s Separate Car Act. In 1896, the Supreme Court ruled the law did not contradict the 14th Amendment’s equal-protection clause. And while the majority opinion didn’t include the exact phrase “separate but equal,” that’s the concept it sanctioned. According to the court, the Constitution guaranteed legal, but not social, equality: segregation was constitutional. There was just one dissenting opinion, from Judge John Marshall Harlan, who wrote, “Our Constitution is colorblind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.” More than half a century would pass before the Supreme Court ruled on “separate but equal” in Brown v. Board of Education.

• Bush v. Gore

In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court decided one of the closest presidential elections ever. With both former Texas governor George W. Bush and Vice President Albert Gore needing to win Florida to claim the presidency, polls closed with just 537 votes separating them. The closeness of the race merited a machine recount of ballots under Florida law. Due to highly-publicized controversy over whether the design of the ballots confused voters or whether machines would miscount incorrectly completed ballots, the Florida Supreme Court ordered manual recounts in several counties. But the U.S. Supreme Court immediately ordered these recounts halted the following day, declaring that counting certain ballots by different methods than others violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourth Amendment. The Court found that the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court was invalid, and that no alternative recount could be performed within the state’s legal time limit. On 12 December 2000, the Supreme Court ruled that the original Florida results would stand, effectively naming Bush the next President of the United States.

• Lawrence v. Texas

In a landmark decision for the gay rights movement, 2003’sLawrence v. Texas declared unconstitutional a Texas law prohibiting sodomy. The case arose when police, after receiving a tip of a domestic disturbance, arrested two men found engaged in homosexual activity. When the case eventually made its way up to the Supreme Court, the 6-3 decision also struck down similar sodomy laws in 13 other states, thus legalizing consensual same-sex sexual activity in all U.S. states and territories. On behalf of the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy maintained that the right to privacy protected such sexual acts, overruling the Court’s previous view that had resulted in the opposite verdict over a similar 1986 case, Bowers v. Hardwick. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion, arguing that states should be able to legally enforce moral opposition to homosexual conduct. But only two fellow justices backed him, and the case soon became an iconic victory for gay rights activists across the nation.

• Dred Scott v. Sanford

Dred Scott, a slave who had lived in the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin before moving back to the slave state of Missouri, appealed to the Supreme Court in hopes of being granted his freedom. Instead, in 1857, in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford, the United States Supreme Court declared that all blacks — regardless of whether they were slaves or free men — were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The court also ruled that the 1820 Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. The decision meant that slavery would be constitutionally permitted throughout the entire country and its territories.

Led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, a staunch supporter of slavery, the court’s majority held that, because of Scott’s color, he was not a citizen and therefore had no standing to sue. Taney wrote in the Court’s majority opinion that the framers of the Constitution believed that blacks “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it.”

While the Declaration of Independence clearly includes the phrase “all men are created equal,” Taney argued that “it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration.”

Abolitionists were appalled by the court’s decision. However, some, including Frederick Douglass, hoped that the ruling would put a spotlight on the issue of slavery and would ultimately result in its destruction.