This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: ciation section
of ADA: (1) "expense," e.g., where employee is fired or suffers some other adverse
personnel action because his spouse has disability that is costly to employer because
spouse is covered by company's health plan; (2) "disability by association," e.g., where
employee's homosexual companion is infected with HIV and employer fears that
employee may also have become infected, through sexual contact with companion or one
of employee's blood relatives has disabling ailment that has genetic component and
employee is likely to develop disability as well; and (3) "distraction," e.g., where
employee is somewhat inattentive at work because his spouse or child has disability that
requires his attention, yet not so inattentive that he would need accommodation to
perform to his employer's satisfaction. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, § 102(b)
(4), 42 U.S.C.A. § 12112(b)(4).
ADA right to accommodation, being limited to disabled employees, does not extend to
nondisabled associate of disabled person. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, §
102(b)(4, 5), 42 U.S.C.A. § 12112(b)(4, 5); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.8. 283 Discharge of salesman whose twin daughters suffered from variety of serious medical
conditions as result of their premature births did not violate association section of ADA;
case did not fit into "expense," "disability by association," or "distraction" categories.
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, § 102(b)(4), 42 U.S.C.A. § 12112(b)(4).
Salesman who claimed he was discharged for exercising his rights under welfare benefits
plan, because employer was annoyed at having to pay cost of his prematurely born twin
daughters' medical expenses, failed to establish prima facie case of retaliation under
ERISA; salesman did not identify similarly situated employee who had not applied for
substantial welfare benefits yet been better treated than he, and did not show he was
performing up to his employer's expectations and in fact was fired because he was not.
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, § 510, 29 U.S.C.A. § 1140.
*699 Gregory A. Adamski, Edward H. Bogle (argued), Adamski &am...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 09/30/2012 for the course ENC 102 taught by Professor Deria during the Spring '08 term at FIU.
- Spring '08