Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2007160
 
 

Footnotes (152)



 


 



Martinizing Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act


Nicole B. Porter


University of Toledo College of Law

February 17, 2012

Georgia Law Review, Forthcoming
University of Toledo Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2012-27

Abstract:     
Prior to the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, relatively few cases proceeded past the initial inquiry of whether the plaintiff was covered by the ADA. Consequently, the scope of an employer’s obligation to provide a reasonable accommodation to an individual with a disability remains under-developed and under-theorized. Now that the Amendments have made it easier for a plaintiff to prove he has a disability under the ADA, we can expect to see more courts struggling with many difficult reasonable accommodation issues. The current case law is chaotic, providing little guidance to employers and courts in determining whether an accommodation is reasonable, and making it impossible to discern any unified principle to explain the chaotic results. This Article does just that. It identifies the scope of an employer’s obligation to reasonably accommodate its employees by proposing a unified approach to the reasonable accommodation provision.

I am facilitated in this endeavor by relying on a case under Title III, the public accommodations Title of the ADA. In PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, involving professional golfer Casey Martin’s request to use a golf cart during the final rounds of the tournament, the Supreme Court held that the PGA Tour has to provide Casey Martin with a reasonable modification to its no-golf-carts rule because the modification did not “fundamentally alter” the nature of the public accommodation. This inquiry involved two questions: 1) does the modification sought alter such an essential aspect of the game of golf that it would be unacceptable even if it affected all competitors equally; and 2) does it give an unfair advantage to the individual with the disability. Although an employer is not a golf tournament, the standard from Martin can provide clarity to the vague “reasonableness” standard in Title I’s reasonable accommodation provision. First, using the fundamental alteration standard, courts should determine whether the accommodation would “fundamentally alter” the nature of the employer/employee relationship. Second, when an accommodation places burdens on other employees, courts should determine if the accommodation causes an unreasonable burden by asking the analogous question from Martin of whether the accommodation would give an unfair advantage to the employee with a disability. Thus, although not a perfect fit, Martinizing Title I offers a helpful structure for providing a coherent, unified approach to the reasonable accommodation provision under the ADA.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 47

Keywords: disability, reasonable accommodation, employment, ADA

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: February 18, 2012 ; Last revised: December 12, 2012

Suggested Citation

Porter, Nicole B., Martinizing Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (February 17, 2012). Georgia Law Review, Forthcoming; University of Toledo Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2012-27. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2007160 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2007160

Contact Information

Nicole B. Porter (Contact Author)
University of Toledo College of Law ( email )
2801 W. Bancroft Street
Toledo, OH 43606
United States
419-530-4785 (Phone)
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 616
Downloads: 96
Download Rank: 164,052
Footnotes:  152

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo6 in 0.297 seconds