Likewise 3 there is no evidence that larimer was

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

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.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online