Since the ADA's passage in 1990, most of the litigation under its employment provisions have dwelled on the definition of disability, which the Act itself defines. Though the ADA was intended to provide a "clear . . . national mandate" and "consistent, enforceable standards," the drafters of the law and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's enforcement regulations have all but guaranteed confusion.
November 29, 1999 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
In June, the Supreme Court issued a trilogy of cases, providing needed guidance about the scope of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA).
The three decisions — Sutton v. United Air Lines Inc., 119 S. Ct. 2139 (1999); Murphy v. United Parcel Service Inc., 119 S. Ct. 2133 (1999); Albertsons Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 119 S. Ct. 2162 (1999) – dramatically affect a fundamental element of the law: the definition of the word disability.
Presented by BigVoodoo
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Consulting Magazine recognizes leaders in technology across three categories Leadership, Client Service and Innovation.
Shipman is seeking an associate to join our Labor & Employment practice in our Hartford, New Haven, or Stamford office. Candidates shou...
Evergreen Trading is a media investment firm headquartered in NYC. We help brands achieve their goals by leveraging their unwanted assets to...
Duane Morris seeks an associate with 3-4 years of experience to join its Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation Group in its Philadelp...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
