Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory
Your query Americans with Disabilities Act returned 20 results.
![]() |
OLMSTEAD V. L. C. [Syllabus] |
![]() |
SPECTOR V. NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD. [Syllabus] |
![]() |
BRAGDON V. ABBOTT, 524 U.S. 624 (1998) [Syllabus] |
![]() |
TENNESSEE V. LANE [Syllabus] Whether Title II of the Americans with Disabilitites Act of 1990 is a proper exercise of Congress' power under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment and thus validly abrogates state sovereign immunity? |
![]() |
SUTTON V. UNITED AIR LINES, INC. [Syllabus] |
![]() |
BARNES V. GORMAN [Syllabus] Punitive damages may not be awarded in private suits brought under §202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and §504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. |
![]() |
CHEVRON U.S. A. INC. V. ECHAZABAL [Syllabus] The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 permits an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulation authorizing an employer to refuse to hire a disabled individual because his performance on the job would endanger his own health. |
![]() |
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA.V. GARRETT [Syllabus] 1. Whether the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution bars suits by private citizens in federal court under the Americans with Disabilities Act against non-consenting states. 2. Whether the Eleventh Amendment bars suits in federal court by private citizens under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 against non-consenting states." |
![]() |
ALBERTSONS, INC. V. KIRKINGBURG [Syllabus] |
![]() |
PGA TOUR, INC. V. MARTIN [Syllabus] Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 prohibits petitioner from denying golfer Casey Martin equal access to its golf tours on the basis of a disability that prevents him from walking a golf course; allowing Martin to use a golf cart, despite petitioner's walking requirement, is not a modification that would "fundamentally alter the nature" of petitioner's tours. |
![]() |
US AIRWAYS, INC. V. BARNETT [Syllabus] An employer's showing that an "accommodation" requested under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 conflicts with seniority rules is ordinarily sufficient to show that the accommodation is not "reasonable"; but the employee remains free to show special circumstances that make a seniority rule exception reasonable in the particular case. |
![]() |
EEOC V. WAFFLE HOUSE, INC. [Syllabus] An agreement between an employer and an employee to arbitrate employment-related disputes does not bar the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from pursuing victim-specific judicial relief, such as backpay, reinstatement, and damages, in an action to enforce Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. |
![]() |
TOYOTA MOTOR MFG., KY., INC. V. WILLIAMS [Syllabus] The Sixth Circuit did not apply the proper standard in determining that respondent was disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 because that court analyzed only a limited class of manual tasks and failed to ask whether respondent's impairments prevented or restricted her from performing tasks that are of central importance to most people's daily lives. |
![]() |
CLACKAMAS GASTROENTEROLOGY ASSOCIATES,P. C. V. WELLS [Syllabus] Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates, P.C. is a medical clinic formed as a professional corporation but which operates and has legal attributes of a partnership. The question presented is whether a federal court should apply an economic realities test to determine if the Clinic's physician-shareholders are counted as employees for the purpose of determining if the Clinic is a covered entity subject to the ADA and other federal antidiscrimination states. In this case, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the physician-shareholders are employees. The court below rejected the holdings of the Seventh, Eighth and Eleventh Circuits which used an economic realities test. Instead, it adopted the reasoning of the Second Circuit which rejected that test. |
![]() |
BUCKHANNON BOARD & CARE HOME, INC. V. WESTVIRGINIA DEPT. OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES [Syllabus] The "catalyst theory," which posits that a plaintiff is a prevailing party if it achieves the desired result because the lawsuit brought about a voluntary change in the defendant's conduct, is not a permissible basis for the award of attorney's fees under the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. |
![]() |
WRIGHT V. UNIVERSAL MARITIME SERVICE CORP. [Syllabus] |
![]() |
RAYTHEON CO. V. HERNANDEZ [Syllabus] Whether the Americans with Disabilities Act confers preferential rehire rights on employees lawfully terminated for misconduct, such as illegal drug use. |
![]() |
PENNSYLVANIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS V. YESKEY, 524 U.S. 206 (1998) [Syllabus] |
![]() |
MURPHY V. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. [Syllabus] |
![]() |
CLEVELAND V. POLICY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS CORP. [Syllabus] |