ADA Court Case

I’m Caitlin bird from Caitlin’s animal training where I train service dogs and we’ve got a article here today from Bloomberg law this looks really interesting guys um I cannot wait to get into this so conductor service dog case sets up ADA accommodations battle whether a combination so there’s a little summary here weather accommodation only to perform essential functions it seems to be uh part of the things that they’re disputing worker offered alternative job where service dog is allowed a Union Pacific Railroad uh conductor Vine to bring his service dog to work to help with PTSD related to his military service will try to convince a federal appeals court that he’s protected under federal disability law a three-judge panel of the U.S court of appeals for the eighth circuit is set to hear oral argument Tuesday in a case that could clarify whether the Americans Disabilities Act only requires that employers provide accommodations needed to perform a job’s essential functions the eighth circuit decision will apply to employee Employers in Alaska Arkansas Iowa Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota and South Dakota but also influence other courts the conductor Perry Hoffman is attempting to reinstate a 250 000 jury award against Union Pacific for violating the Ada um which is interesting because you know if you read the Q a on the 80s Ada website about service dogs they do explicitly state that you know dogs can accompany you on the job as long as it doesn’t put you or others at risk I don’t know enough about the job to say one way or the other an Arkansas District Court vacated the award last year after finding that his accommodation request isn’t the kind of privilege or benefit of employment the law requires the Ada’s legislative history also doesn’t support recognizing a PTSD service dog for workers regardless of their disability the trial court found hold on the Ada’s legislative history doesn’t support recognizing a PTSD service dog for workers
huh I wanna I wanna do more about that uh Hopman admitted he can do his job without bringing his Rottweiler Atlas in the train cab with him to help with flashbacks and migraine headaches and added okay so it’s not required there are other ways of going about it it seems Hopman pointed to the 10th circuit 2012 decision in Sanchez versus mislak and the six core circuits 2015 gleed versus at T Mobility soon move okay uh to support his claim that his accommodation request was reasonable but the district court found the facts in those cases distinguishable so they’re not the same accommodation extent hotman a former U.S army flight medic who served Iraq in 2008 in casavo in 2010 accused The District Court of misstating the nature of his accommodation request he never demanded a right to work without mental or physiological pain as the district court claimed Hoffman said in his I can’t what that word instead he’s simply trying to manage the worst symptoms of his disabilities while at work case law suggests that the Ada must be construed broadly consistent with its purpose to ensure that workers with disabilities have equal employment opportunities as employees who aren’t living with disabilities so it almost sounds as if so he States that um he was misrepresented right for what he was looking for um but at the same time if that’s no what you’re looking for my question is does the Ada cover that right because essentially what he’s saying it sounds like it’s a support dog it sounds like it’s almost like an Esa that he needs the support during work with uh so that’s interesting but having a service dog aboard a train would be unsafe and inconsistent with Federal safety regulations a railroad said in its response brief Union Pacific offered Hoffman alternative position a yard job where he could bring Atlas without violating Federal safety law okay so safety is a concern I wish I knew the details like what about it what safety is this hotman took that job for a time but eventually sued to force the company let him bring Atlas aboard the freight trains um kind of want to kind of want to do a deep dive into Freight trades I mean they are large they are heavy um you don’t want toes and things getting stuck in places they shouldn’t be getting stuck in but there’s booties for that if the appeals court accepts hopman’s reading of the Ada employers would need would be forced to provide workplace accommodations employees don’t necessarily need including those that contravene other federal laws or regulations the company argued okay so that’s what Union Pacific is arguing the association of American railroads the U.S Chamber of Commerce fields that word briefs in support of Union Pacific Robin tysberg a spokesperson for the railroad told Bloomberg law law in a statement that the company has profound history of recruiting and employing military veterans about 20 of our Workforce are veterans in this case we attempted to accommodate this person’s needs about jeopardizing the safety of our employees at the public and I need to know specifics I have so many questions Council for Hoffman didn’t immediate reply to a request for comment and these are the representatives for Union uh I guess they don’t state representatives for an individual person Joe is that thing there huh I have so many questions um does anyone here I would love for you guys to comment down below I I am very not familiar with the legal system but I would like to know from somebody who is um because one of the things that I hear and that people know like you know certain things are made publicly available uh certain cases I don’t know um like when that happens um like is it during the case that it’s available is it after everything’s judge and jury probably after I would imagine but this is interesting um and then where would you find that information I could probably I don’t like I feel I know for a fact I find a Google search but I don’t even know what keywords to start looking for like I don’t know what do I even search so if you know um maybe where I would honestly love to see more um lost stuff regarding the Ada and service dogs and kind of just you know get a better history of who filed why they filed what are the implications who won why they won who lost why did they lose you know um so let me know down in the comments below um uh there is another course this was a really short article so there’s another one hold on just a second here maybe it’s really maybe not um let’s see this this is from Reuters judges skeptical that employer required to allow veterans service so this might be the same thing hold on this one was published January 10th this one was published no but it’s got the same stock photo let’s see what’s the summary Union Pacific okay so so it is Union Pacific tonight veterans bid to bring service talk to work just says employees don’t have to vacate symptoms of disabilities and appeals panel concern about expanding protections for workers so this seems like the same thing even though okay so this is published same day 13 and 5 30 in the morning okay so this just might be a regurgitation of what we already saw hold on it looks like it’s Rewritten a little bit hold on just a sec let me read through this okay so it looks like this article is going a little bit more detail here it says Circuit Judge James Logan suggested that under Griffin’s Theory the Ada would require employers to ensure that not only with disability that not that not only that workers with disabilities
can fulfill their job duties but that they feel good while doing so again this is kind of leaning towards like the esa route and that would make it much more difficult for employers to have Ada claims dismissed at an early stage Joe that’s not even your bed let me see let’s read this and see if Reuters can add in any uh any Clarity into this uh U.S appeals court panel on Tuesday seemed hesitant to revive a Union Pacific Railroad engineer’s claim that he should be able to bring a service dog to work to prevent migraines and anxiety caused by his military service judges on an eighth U.S Circuit Court of Appeals panel in St Louis expressed concerns that are ruling in favor of the engineer Perry Hoffman could open employers up to a flood of lawsuits claiming they violate federal law by denying accommodations that would mitigate symptoms of workers disabilities ottman a former combat flight medic who served in Iraq and Costco okay yes we know this [Music] um denied 2016 a jury in 2021 sided with Hopman but a federal judge in Little Rock Arkansas last year tossed out the verdict and dismissed the case John Griffin a lawyer for hot mental the 8th circuit on Tuesday the 88 entitles Hopman to an accommodation that would allow him to do his job at the same level as co-workers without disabilities but again the migraines and there was something else um that Griffin it was hot pot men pumpkinthe symptoms that hotman mentions um of their own volition say that the dog doesn’t I mean the dog does help with that but there are alternatives for him to use work equally well entitled hot meant to a combination that would allow him to do his job at the same level as co-workers on disabilities but Circuit Judge James Logan suggested that under Griffin’s Theory the Ada would require employers to ensure that not only workers with disabilities could fulfill their job duties but that they feel good so if a worker says I need a two-hour lunch or whatever my migraines is that an accommodation Logan asked I would argue it’s an undue hardship to give employees unlimited lunch breaks but it’s not unlimited it’s two hours not Unlimited um the Ada does not require employers to Grant service dogs that would be overly burdensome so it’s a jury issue Logan said it could be Griffin responded now we’ve exposed the breadth of your argument the judge said like this transcript that’s what I’m looking forward to court transcripts maybe that’s maybe that’s what I need to Google how to find Court transcripts I think I got it I think I got it um now we’ve exposed the breath of your argument I have to worry about applying the standard you’re arguing for Logan or for Griffin I don’t know it’s been a day already um Union Pacific’s lawyer Stephanie Shuster of Morgan service dogBacchus said the Ada requires only that workers with disabilities be afforded the same benefits and privileges of employee employment as their colleagues and that does not extend to addressing
stress or pain so you can have a you can work a job with stress and pain even though others aren’t experiencing stress service dog or pain I’m not sure what the argument is
here if mitigating pain is a benefit or privilege of employment every accommodation is a benefit or privilege of employment and there is no limiting principle she said
Schuster’s comments echoed concerns raised by the U.S Chamber of Commerce
Commerce and in in a brief filed last year the chamber said requiring employers to modify workplace practices to address workers symptoms would inundate them with accommodation requests and lawsuits until you fixed it the eighth circuit panel includes circus judge levinsky Smith and Roger service dog who on Tuesday both suggested that bringing the dog to work may have improved Hoffman’s working conditions but was not necessary to him performing The Essential functions of his job foreign I mean it’s not right if you’re talking about quality of life standard and human just common human decency to not be in pain you know what are the five freedoms right one of them is to not be in pain um it just seems very unempathetic to me to look at someone who’s performing a job for you as a company and that job is wearing on their joints is physically harming them in some way long term because they have to do repetitive tasks and repetitive motions like does your does the health insurance with you as a company that you’re providing this person even cover that um are you paying for his [ __ ] migraine pills like what foreign I understand your business and you’re about making money but you also can’t just put sure and push your employees to the side like that you know like that’s that to me is deeply ethically wrong interesting the Ada only requires employers to provide reasonable service dogs while an employee would otherwise not be able to fill their jobs yeah I think I think that might be if that’s right if that’s what they’re basing the whole argument off of I think that’s the problem right because if that’s if that is the law
the law is saying or the Ada law is saying you’re right if if this passes if this is if this is the argument that wins if that passes the match shows that it only again the individual person doesn’t matter and what matters is the end result that that person can do right it’s the person is a commodity is literally what I feel this statement is saying again I’m not a lawyer not legal advice I don’t know exact I don’t I honestly don’t I mean I’m doing the best I can with the information I have here but that’s what it speaks to me um the case is Hopman versus Union Pacific Railroad it’s U.S Circuit Court of Appeals oh okay so Maple oh okay I’m gonna look this up I’m gonna look this might end up being a longer video for Hopman John Grafton I can’t do these groups man um okay okay so these represents all right Griffin and Schuster hold on let’s look this up I wonder okay and I’m all set here okay let’s see um law 360. Service dog case text is that it case text Hoffman are you at Union Court to ignore let’s open this one let’s see what this does oh it’s a whole PDF is this the court documents
it look oh it looks like it oh [ __ ]

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.