For HR professionals and employment lawyers, the basics of FMLA and ADA is an oft-covered topic in law firm webinars.
But I’ve heard from plenty of people that they’re good with the basics; it’s the tricky issues that give them headaches.
With the acknowledgement that one person’s difficult question may be another person’s easy one
Years ago, I wrote about how state employment law imposed a duty to engage in an interactive dialogue with an employee who had a disability and was requesting a reasonable accommodation.
But what it does it truly mean to engage in an interactive process?
A new case from the Connecticut Appellate Court provides some
Engaging in the interactive process is an important — and sometimes overlooked — part of an employer’s response to a request for a reasonable accommodation under state and federal law.
I talked about this way back in 2008 (!) when the state Supreme Court released it’s landmark Curry v. Allen S. Goodman decision expanding the
My colleague Gary Starr sits next to my office and sometimes we bounce ideas off each other. One of the things we were talking about recently was a new case that discussed an employer’s obligations to enter into the interactive process.
This often comes up in ADA cases where the employee may need a reasonable
Busy week here. So, it’s time to bring back a recurring post of “Quick Hits” of articles you may have missed along the way. Here are some of my recent favorites:
The Connecticut Appellate Court will officially release an opinion next week that reaffirms that the interactive process required by both the Americans with Disabilities Act and the state law equivalent to discuss a reasonable accommodation to a disability, requires the employee to engage in the process as well.
The case, Festa v. Board of
The Second
Circuit has been a bit busier of late making it tougher to keep up with all the developments (though I would suggest the Wait a Second blog as a good site to follow to do so).
Yesterday, in McBride v. BIC Consumer Products (download here), the Second Circuit rejected an employee’s ADA claim
Nearly six months ago, a landmark ruling by the Connecticut Supreme Court held that Connecticut’s anti-discrimination laws required employers to provide a reasonable accommodation to disabled workers, much like the federal counterpart, the ADA.
As I noted in an earlier post about the case, Curry v. Allen S. Goodman, Inc., the Court suggested that the employer had a
President Bush’s signature is expected any day now on the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (click for my prior posts here), which represent some of the most important changes to federal employment laws in over a decade. For employers in Connecticut, there is going to need to be some synthesis with Connecticut’s anti-discrimination laws so
Last month, I addressed the Connecticut Supreme Court’s decision in Curry v. Allan S. Goodman, which expanded state disability laws to match (or in some cases, exceed) the scope of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The employer has moved, on limited grounds, to have the court reconsider its decision. You can download a