Inconsistent assertions regarding disabilities made in ADA complaints and in applications for disability benefitsBy Paul E. FreehlingLabor and Employment Law, October 2005As a consequence of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Cleveland v. Policy Management Sys. Corp., 526 U.S. 795 (1999), discussed below, an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) lawsuit plaintiff who also has filed one or more applications for disability benefits clearly is required to explain the apparent inconsistency between (a) statements on the application(s) that the applicant is unable to work, and (b) allegations in the ADA complaint that the plaintiff is able to perform the job’s essential functions.
Case synopsisBy Regina W. CalabroFederal Civil Practice, November 2004In Maynard v. Nygren, the trial court concluded that the evidence and testimony clearly and convincingly demonstrated that Maynard was untruthful regarding his request for and receipt of the letter from his doctor, and that Maynard intentionally and willfully withheld the letter from the Sheriff.
No jury and no compensatory damages, no punitives in ADA retaliation claimBy Lorna K. GeilerLabor and Employment Law, April 2004Colleen Kramer sued her former employer, Bank of America Securities, LLC ("BOA") for, among other things, retaliatory discharge under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").
Americans with Disabilities ActEducation Law, June 2000During 1998-1999 term, the United States Supreme Court resolved three pending issues with regard to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. ("ADA"): (1) the impact of an employee's receipt of disability benefits upon an ADA claim;
