Americans with Disability Act

There can be some variations in the pay as per the nature of the work. The EPA has The court hads laid down certain principles in number of cases based on the provisions of the Act. In Stanley L. Smith V Turner Unified School Dist. Ltd (25) the court held that the aggrieved party should establish that age is the determining factor of any adverse employment action. This view was taken in Greene v. Safeway Stores, Inc. , also. (26) (Here the plaintiff should show that he is a member of the protected age group, over age 40, he is doing satisfactory work; he suffered an adverse employment action and a younger person replaced him.

The court further explained that if the plaintiff must face some major changes in employment like hiring, failing to promote reassigning different responsibilities or the decision causing some signifiacnt cahnges in benefits, he could forward an action based on adverse employment action. However, such action does not include a mere inconvenience or an alteration of job responsibilities. The law relating to the equality for disabiled persons directs all the employers including private,state and local governemnts ,labour unions,employment agencies not to take any action of discrimination againts the qualified individuals with disabilities.

The law further enumerates that the employers should not deny nay rights reagrding the job application procedures, hiring, training copmensation and any other privileges. (27) The act specifies the disabled person who has a physical or mental impairment, which may limit some life activities of such persons or the person who is regarded as having such an impairement. Here it is the duty of eth employer to provide a reasonable accommodation to the known disability of a qualified applicant or employee if it would not impose an “undue hardship” on the operation of the employer’s business.

He should provide any accomadation with inferior quality. In the case of John Brennen V Mercedez Benz USA and Universal technical Intitute (28) by dismissing the appeal of the plaintiff, the court has overviewd certain aspects regarding the impairment of the employees and trainees. Here the plaintiff appealed a cases against the defendants on the basis of employment discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress. (29) Here the court affirmed the provision given in the title 1 of the ADA. However, the court insisted with referance to the case McGuinness v.

Univ. of N. M (30) that the aggrieved should forward feasible claim in order to meet the requirements of the provision… The provision affords the protection to the qualified individuals with the dissability in the light of employment decisions. Moreover, the job training should be in such a way that each trainee can possess the job based on that trainig. But the training availed on the basis of sponsor ship may not allow the grieved under the purview of this act as there does not exist any employment realtioship between the trainee and employer.

In order to gain the status of the trainee , he should get any compensation from the employer ,moreover he should forward an application to the employer. (31) Apart from this, the court has clearded his view of impairment in the case GTE Southwest, Inc. v. Bruce,(32) that the impairment should be in in severe form that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it. So it is highly necessary that the person who moves against his employer with regard to the infringement of his disability right, should make a cursory attempt to address this deficiency. (32) (Switzer,2003)