Tag Archive for: Disability Law

Fourth Circuit Grants Gender Dysphoria Disability Protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

/in , ,

On August 16, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (covering Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia) has become the first federal appellate court to find that gender dysphoria is covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).[1] The decision came after a transgender woman sued Fairfax County for housing her with men during her time in jail.

The court explained that “being transgender is not a disability,” but “many transgender people experience gender dysphoria.” Distinct from now-obsolete “gender identity disorders”[2] that the ADA excludes, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) defines gender dysphoria as “psychological distress that results from an incongruence between one’s sex assigned at birth and one’s gender identity.” As the court explained, gender dysphoria “concerns itself primarily with distress and other disabling symptoms, rather than simply being transgender.” Excluding gender dysphoria from ADA protection, the court ruled, “would discriminate against transgender people as a class,” in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The ADA requires employers, schools, and other businesses or organizations open to the public to provide reasonable accommodations to support people with disabilities. In the employment context, this decision allows employees experiencing gender dysphoria to request workplace accommodation from their employers. Additionally, those discriminated against for gender dysphoria may bring a claim under the ADA.

This ruling follows an increase in federal district courts’ endorsement of gender dysphoria as a protected disability under federal anti-discrimination law. Even so, the law is constantly evolving in this area, and you should contact an attorney to see how this ruling—or the ADA in general—applies to you. Our experienced employment law attorneys are happy to discuss your case and help you understand your legal rights and options in light of this new ruling.

NOTES:

[1] Williams v. Kincaid, No. 21-2030, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 22728 (4th Cir. Aug. 16, 2022).

[2] The APA removed “gender identity disorder” from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders nearly a decade ago.

NPR Details Struggle Workers Face as a Result of Long COVID

/in , ,

We have discussed Long COVID here before. In an important article, NPR discussed the latest updates on Long COVID and its impact on workers. The article also discusses disability laws, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), and how they interact with employees experiencing Long COVID.

Long COVID is an increasingly important issue facing Americans and employees. Check out the article and contact us if you have questions about Long COVID, employment law or disability law.

Does My Employer Have to Accommodate My Long-Haul COVID Symptoms?

/in

COVID-19 has presented many questions for employers and employees. One set of questions surrounds “long COVID,” or “long-haul COVID.”

President Biden announced that the long-term effects of COVID-19 infection can in fact be considered a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This likely would apply under Minnesota’s Human Rights Act (MHRA) as well.

This means that employees who were infected with COVID-19 and still suffer from symptoms such as respiratory problems, brain fog, chronic pain, and fatigue that rise to the level of a disability are protected under federal law. Such symptoms rise to the level of a disability if they substantially limit a major life activity such as work. Employees with a disability are entitled to reasonable accommodations in the workplace.

If you have questions about ADA accommodations, or if your employer is refusing to provide accommodations or discriminating against you because of a disability, contact us. Our experienced employment law attorneys would be happy to discuss your case and help you understand your legal rights and options.

Minnesota Supreme Court Issues Landmark Disability Discrimination Decision

/in ,

On February 27, 2019, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued a major decision in favor of employees. The case, Daniel v. Minneapolis, addressed whether an employee who is disabled as a result of a work injury can bring a claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). For decades, such employees were prohibited from filing MHRA claims because of a prior supreme court ruling in Karst v. FC Hayer Co., Inc. (issued in 1989). Under Karst, disabled employees were prohibited from bringing human rights claims because they were preempted by Minnesota’s Workers’ Compensation Act. Consequently, any employee who experienced disability discrimination resulting from a work injury was left without any recourse to remedy the discrimination.

This led to absurd results. For example, if an employee suffered a disabling injury outside of work, she would be protected from discrimination under the MHRA. But if that same employee became disabled at work, she would have no protection from discrimination. Her employer would be free to fire her because of her disability and nothing more. This was bad policy for Minnesotans and was out of step with the rest of the country, with nearly every state rejecting similar interpretations of their own state laws.

In Daniel, the Minnesota Supreme Court corrected that problem and overruled the Karst decision. Writing for a 5-2 majority, Justice Margaret Chutich wrote, “Unlike the workers’ compensation act, the human rights act is a civil rights law that protects employees from unlawful employment discrimination.” The Court recognized the fundamental difference between the Workers’ Compensation Act, which is designed to remedy work injuries, and the MHRA, which is designed to protect disabled employees from discrimination. Because of these differences, neither law preempts the other. Instead, workers have rights under both.

Teske, Katz, Kitzer & Rochel lawyers Phillip Kitzer and Brian Rochel wrote on behalf of the Minnesota Chapter of the National Employment Lawyers Association in a “friend of the court” or amicus brief, asking the Supreme Court to overrule the Karst decision. “This marks a great step forward for all employees in Minnesota and corrects a decades-long error in the law,” said Phillip Kitzer. “Employees should not be treated differently and denied equal protection simply because they become disabled as a result of a work injury. That is not consistent with Minnesota’s strong history of protecting and advancing human rights,” added Brian Rochel.

If you have any questions about Daniel v. Minneapolis, disability discrimination, workers’ compensation retaliation, or employment law generally, please contact Teske, Katz, Kitzer & Rochel today.

Favorable Settlement Changes City of Minneapolis Policies for Disabled Workers

/in , ,

On December 22, 2017, Teske Katz Kitzer & Rochel finalized a settlement agreement in Stewart, et al. v. The City of Minneapolis, an employment discrimination class action lawsuit. The agreement included significant policy changes that benefit City of Minneapolis employees who are or become disabled.

Laurence Stewart, the named plaintiff, is a former employee of Minneapolis in its Public Works Department. Stewart sought classwide relief for himself and all other similar employees. The Complaint alleged that the City’s return to work policy violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) because it failed to provide reasonable accommodation for disabled workers.

The settlement agreement provides that the City will now conduct multiple assessments for reasonable accommodations for all employees who are eligible for its Return to Work Job Bank.

A full press release with details of the policy changes and copy of the Amended Complaint are available here:

Here is a previous post regarding the Stewart v. City of Minneapolis litigation.

Mr. Stewart is represented by Brian Rochel and Marisa Katz of Teske Katz Kitzer & Rochel, PLLP. Teske Katz Kitzer & Rochel is an employment and class action law firm representing employees in Minnesota and across the country.

For more information, or if you have questions about this lawsuit, contact Brian Rochel at (612) 767-0520 or at rochel@kitzerrochel.com.