In Winston Groom’s “Forrest Gump” a young man with a significant intellectual impairment manages to accomplish great things through a combination of luck, determination, and insistent loyalty to his friends and family. Was he disabled as that term is defined under the ADA? An April 11 decision from the Easter District of Pennsylvania reminds us how complex a disability determination can be. It also highlights a persistent question with intellectual and other mental impairments: If hard work and character allow someone to overcome their limitations, is that person really disabled? Bibber v. National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiner, Inc., 2016 WL 1404157 (E.D. Penn. April 11, 2016). More
mental health disabilities
On its face EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch, which was recently argued before the Supreme Court, doesn’t have much to do with the ADA and FHA. It has been generally reported as a case concerning religious discrimination, and seems to have little to do with disabilities. Despite this, the Court’s ruling could have a significant impact on how employers and public accommodations handle reasonable accommodation requests. Putting aside the legalese, the question before the Court is whether “don’t ask, don’t tell” is a reasonable way to deal with those whose religious beliefs, or disabilities are not obvious.
By richardhunt in Accessibility Litigation Trends, ADA FHA General, ADA FHA Legislation, ADA FHA Litigation General, Condominiums, FHA, Multi-Family Tags: assistance animals, Condominiums, developers, FHA Litigation, mental health disabilities, service animals, therapy animals
Many lawyers and governmental entities believe that anyone who is “disabled” for purposes of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) must also be handicapped for purposes of the Fair Housing Act (FHA). This used to be true, but may not be anymore. The difference between a disability and a handicap has important practical implications for multi-family communities and others who are subject to the accessibility provisions of the FHA. More
By richardhunt in Accessibility Litigation Trends, ADA, ADA FHA General, ADA FHA Litigation General, Restaurants, Retail Tags: ada litigation, ada violation, mental health disabilities, service animals, support animals, therapy animals
With widespread media coverage of disputes about service dogs in bars and restaurants disability advocates, real and self proclaimed, are predicting an explosion of litigation about service dogs under the Americans with Disabilities Act. There has been no change in the statute itself, and the Department of Justice regulations for service dogs went into effect in 2011. However, as with other kinds of ADA litigation, it has taken some time for the implications of the law to work their way into the popular consciousness.
The easy situation for any business is a person with an obvious disability who comes to a business with a well behaved service dog wearing a vest or other identification. The ADA is clear – the dog and owner must be allowed in the store or restaurant even if there is a “no pets” policy in place. The harder situation, and the one that leads to media coverage and lawsuits, occurs when a person who has no obvious disability arrives with an unmarked dog and a bad attitude. Dealing with this situation, and any resulting problems, requires careful thought about just how service dogs fit into the ADA’s scheme of disability rights. More
Hoarding is a disability that creates special problems for landlords. Hoarders are often secretive, and by its very nature the activity often does not become apparent until it is reached the point where there is a health or safety risk. In addition, a reasonable accomodation may still require that the tenant take affirmative action that is both difficult and possibly expensive. Dealing with the reasonable accommodation requirements of the Fair Housing Act under these circumstances requires special care.
A case from District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Douglas v. Kriegsfeld, 884 A.2d 1109 (D.C.App. 2005) illustrates what not to do it. The tenant More