For almost 20 years, the McDonnell Douglas case has provided guidelines for proving discrimination in employment under the Civil Rights Act. These guidelines have also been used for discrimination cases under the Americans With Disabilities Act, which requires accommodating disabled individuals. However, the burden shifting in McDonnell Douglas doesn’t work well for cases where accommodation is a central issue. The ADA, which prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities, needs clearer guidelines for courts to determine who has the burden of proof in accommodation cases. This article will discuss different court approaches and propose practical solutions. The ADA applies to employment, public services, and public accommodations, ensuring equal opportunities for people with disabilities. The article will also review cases and propose approaches to assigning burdens in accommodation cases. Title I and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibit discrimination against individuals with disabilities.
Under Title I, employers must make reasonable accommodations for qualified individuals with disabilities, unless it would cause undue hardship. Employers cannot deny job opportunities based on the need for accommodation.
Under Title II, public entities must provide access to services and programs for individuals with disabilities, unless it would fundamentally alter the nature of the service or create undue financial and administrative burdens. The ADA requires businesses to accommodate people with disabilities, but they don’t have to do anything that would cause them too much trouble or expense. They have to make their places accessible and provide things like hearing devices if it’s not too hard for them. If it’s too difficult or expensive, they can find another way to make their services available. It can be hard to figure out who has to prove what is reasonable or necessary, and how much proof is needed. The court said that under the Americans with Disabilities Act, it’s the job of the person with a disability to prove that the employer could make a reasonable accommodation for them. But at the same time, the employer has to prove that the accommodation would cause them a lot of trouble. This might seem like both sides have the same burden, but the law actually makes it look that way. The riddle of the proofs has been solved by looking at a law called The Rehabilitation Act of 1973. This law says that people with disabilities should not be excluded from programs that receive federal funding, and that reasonable accommodations should be made for them. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is meant to be interpreted in the same way as the Rehabilitation Act. This means that when Congress uses a term that’s already well established, they want it to be interpreted consistently with existing regulations. In the Borkowski v. Valley Central School District case, a teacher with a disability needed a teacherâs aid to help control her classes. The school board said she wasnât qualified under the law, and that providing an aid would be too difficult. The court said the teacher only had to show a reasonable accommodation was possible, and then the burden was on the school to prove it wasnât. So basically, once the teacher showed a possible solution, the school had to prove it wouldnât work. In a court case, the defendant has to show that they can’t make reasonable accommodations for the plaintiff. But the plaintiff still has to prove that they can do the job with or without accommodations. It’s a bit confusing because the court has said different things about who has to prove what. In a case about accommodating people with disabilities, the court said that the person asking for accommodation must show that it’s reasonable in most cases. If it’s a big burden, then they don’t have to do it. The employer has more information than the person asking for accommodation. This idea was also used in another case about disability accessibility at Yankee Stadium. In the Vande Zande v. State of Wisconsin case, the court looked at how costs factor into deciding if an accommodation for a disability is reasonable. The employee has to show that the accommodation is effective and not too expensive. Even if they do that, the employer can still argue that the costs are too high for them to handle. This doesn’t really solve the problem of balancing the employee’s and employer’s responsibilities. We need to take a closer look at what the employee has to prove in the first place. In this case, the 11th Circuit Court said that it’s up to the employee to show how they can do their job with a specific accommodation. They said that the employer doesn’t have to prove that an accommodation would be unreasonable â it’s the employee’s job to prove that it would be reasonable. The court also said that the question of whether an accommodation is reasonable is more of a general inquiry, while whether it causes hardship for the employer is a more specific inquiry. In this case, the court said that if a person with a disability asks for a change to a policy, they have to show that the change is reasonable. If they do that, the business has to make the change unless they can prove it would really change the business too much. In the Gambrinus approach to disability accommodation, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to suggest a reasonable accommodation. If the plaintiff succeeds, the burden then shifts to the defendant to show that the accommodation would create a fundamental change to the job. In the Reed case, the court required the plaintiff to show that the accommodation would allow them to do the job and that it is feasible for the employer. The defendant would then have to prove that the accommodation would create undue hardship. So, basically, the plaintiff has to show the accommodation is reasonable, and the defendant has to show it would be too difficult or costly to provide. In the case Colorado Cross Disability Coalition v. Hermanson Family Limited Partnership, the court said that if a person with a disability wants a barrier removed, they have to show it can be done easily and without a lot of expense. Then, the person or company defending against the claim has to prove that it’s not possible to remove the barrier. In Monetter v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, the court said that if a person with a disability says they can do a job with some help, the employer has to prove that the job requirement is really necessary. And in US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, the court looked at a case where a person with a disability wanted a different job but wasn’t entitled to it based on the employer’s rules. The Court decided that the seniority system generally takes priority in most cases. The burden of proving that an accommodation is reasonable falls on the plaintiff, unless they can show special circumstances. The Court also clarified that “reasonable accommodation” doesn’t just mean the opposite of “undue hardship.” Lower courts have found ways to make the two concepts work together. In the end, the defendant must provide evidence specific to the case to show that the accommodation would cause undue hardship. US Airways still needs to provide clear guidance for ADA cases. The burden of proof is on the person filing the lawsuit to show why the seniority system should be set aside. If the person can show special circumstances, the airline company has to prove why those circumstances don’t matter. If the person needs to show a specific accommodation plan, both sides will have similar evidence. It’s important to understand how heavy the burden of proof is for the person filing the lawsuit. These are references to specific laws and regulations related to labor and employment rights. The information is provided by a lawyer who has a lot of experience in this area of law. He now works as a mediator and arbitrator. The column is submitted on behalf of the Labor and Employment Law Section. The main purpose of the section is to promote the principles of duty and service to the public, improve the administration of justice, and advance the science of jurisprudence.
Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/burdens-of-proof-of-reasonableness-and-undue-hardship-under-titles-i-ii-and-iii-of-the-americans-with-disabilities-act-part-i/
Leave a Reply