Holding that DPW violated the ADA by requiring that plaintiff receive required care services in a nursing home rather than in her own home through an attendant care program
Finding that employer bank made good faith effort to engage in interactive process with employee who demonstrated excessive tardiness; the breakdown of the interactive process was due to the plaintiff employee's conduct
Holding that a "100% healed" policy is a per se violation of the ADA but that the plaintiff could not assert that violation because she received individualized treatment despite the policy
Noting that "[a]lthough this Circuit has not directly addressed the issue, other federal circuit and district courts overwhelmingly agree that a plaintiff may only sue a defendant under Title I of the ADA if the plaintiff is an employee, rather than an independent contractor, of the defendant," and holding that because plaintiff conceded she was an independent contractor of defendant, she could not sue defendant under the ADA
29 C.F.R. § 1614.405 Cited 81 times 3 Legal Analyses
Providing that " decision [of the EEOC in an administrative appeal] is final . . . unless . . . [e]ither party files a timely request for reconsideration"