Employment Court Outcomes Discussion

Employment Court Outcomes Discussion

Instructions/Descriptions

Employment Court Outcomes Discussion

Sheila 

Holbrook v. City of Alpharetta, Ga. 112 F.3d 1522 (1997)

Did I Find the Way the Court Found?

On May 22, 1997, The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted summary Judgement in favor of the City of Alpharetta. The court found that the city (defendants) decision to cease making

accommodations did not violate ADA. The court also found that Holbrook could not use Title II of ADA did not go into effect until Title, and Holbrook could not use the 1983 Act in lieu of Rehabilitation Act or ADA.

I did find in favor of the City of Alpharetta, although I feel bad for Det. Holbrook and I want police departments to look out for injured officers.

What Holbrook wanted went way beyond the accommodations an employer must provide. The Metropolitan Police Department has a general order specifying its ADA policy and why the department would deny an

employee’s request for accommodation.

General Order 100 V Section A, “An employee may request a reasonable accommodation.”

General Order 100 section V. MPD can deny an employee’s ADA request for “D. #5 The employee’s request for a reasonable accommodation would create an undue hardship on the operation of the MPD, and there is no alternative reasonable accommodation.”

“D. #6 The employees’ requested accommodation would pose a direct threat to the health or safety of the employee, coworkers, or the general public.”

The Americans with Disabilities Act strives to keep an employee with a disability employed. However, law enforcement employers must balance the ADA with the safety of both the officer and other employees.

Holiday v City of Chattanooga Response Project

[Order Now]

Monya
A. TITLE AND CITATION: Holiday v. City of Chattanooga, 206 F.3d 637 (6th Cir. 2000)

12101. TYPE OF ACTION: Louis Holiday filed a civil suit for violating the rights of persons with disabilities in employment under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 42 U.S.C. §12101. Holiday filed a suit under the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. He made this claim against the city of Chattanooga.
12102. FACTS OF THE CASE: Holiday applied for the police officer post in the City in 1993. Based on the requirements, Holiday excelled in the physical agility test and passed the written examination. The police department called Holiday for an interview. They told him he would get employed after he passed the physical and psychological assessments; thus, they referred him to Dr. Steve Dowlen to undergo the tests. Holiday told the doctor of his HIV-positive condition and borderline anemic. After the test, the doctor told him he had passed. However, Donna Kelley received information from Dr.Dowlen’s office telling him of Holiday’s medical condition, and thus he failed. Dr.Dowlen and Kelley further discussed it in a full medical report. After further discussions, Kelley and Dinsmore decided they would not employ Kelly based on Dr.Dowlen’s report. Holiday asked why his unemployment was, and Kelley stated that it was due to his HIV status, which put others at risk.
12103. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:

[Order Now]

Plaintiffs Louis Holiday sued the hiring committee due to violating the ADA Act. Holiday was discriminated against because of his HIV status and consequently rejected by theCity employment committee.

Defendant, The City employment committee argued that the HIV-positivity status Holiday would pose risks to other officers due to blood-to-blood contact. Thus, it led to a health and safety concern for other officers, and Holiday will be a direct threat to others.

1. ISSUE(S): The issue is thus relevant to the studies since the City violated Holiday’s rights under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act by using his HIV-positivity status as an aspect for disqualifying him.
2. DECISION: The previous judgment in favor of the City was wrong. Thus, Holiday’s claims are valid, and the City was wrong in disqualifying him; therefore, Holiday had the right to get employment.
3. REASONING: The Court ruled in favor of Holiday due to several reasons. First, the City did not provide any material evidence regarding his HIV-positive status of Holiday and if it affected his physicality. Secondly, the City gauged Holiday’s qualifications on HIV/AIDS status, which was not part of the tests. In contrast, Holiday had material evidence that he qualified for the post and had worked in another area as a police officer after the City rejected him, and he was competent. Finally, the decisions for Holiday’s disqualification were due to fear and mythologies and individualized inquiry, which is against the ADA Act, which states that a direct threat from an individual is valid only if assessed that the individual is incapable of safely performing the job requirements.
4. RULE OF LAW: One legal point from the case involves that society or organizations should judge people with disabilities based on their abilities to perform the jobrequirements and not through ignorance, fear, prejudice,and mythologies. In addition, the judgment should be through valid or material evidence of their abilities.

No less than 100 words, respond tothis persons discussion

Employment Court Outcomes Discussion

PLACE THE ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET A PERFECT SCORE!!!