HRM370_W5ASSIGNMENTCLEMENS

.docx

School

Grantham University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

370

Subject

Law

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

8

Uploaded by ProfLapwing6772

Report
Case Questions Jayme Clemens College of Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Arkansas Grantham Employment Law Professor Adam Paulson January 1670 th , 2024
Keith v. County of Oakland. 1. What are the legal issues in this case? What did the appeals court decide? a. The primary legal issue in this case is whether the County of Oakland violated Title I of the ADA by failing to provide reasonable accommodations and discriminating against an individual with a disability during their application process. b. In Keith v. County of Oakland, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that the defendant had violated Title I of the ADA by failing to provide reasonable accommodations for an individual with a disability during employment consideration. The court concluded that summary judgment in favor of the defendant was inappropriate due to genuine issues of material fact regarding failure to accommodate claims and discriminatory intent. 2. Does it appear that the type of “individualized inquiry” required by the ADA occurred in this case? Why or why not? a. An essential aspect of ADA compliance is conducting an individualized inquiry into an applicant's abilities and considering reasonable accommodations necessary for their equal participation in employment opportunities. (Goren, 2020) In this case, while there were some efforts made by Oakland County to gather information about Keith's abilities, they fell short in conducting a comprehensive individualized inquiry as required by ADA guidelines.
3. Was the plaintiff “otherwise qualified” for this lifeguard position? Why or why not? a. To be considered "otherwise qualified" for a lifeguard position, a candidate must possess essential job-related qualifications with or without reasonable accommodation. Considering Keith's extensive training and experience as a lifeguard prior to his injury, he possessed sufficient qualifications required for performing lifeguard duties. b. The court referred to EEOC guidelines stating that if an employer can demonstrate that an employee's inability to perform a particular function would result in significant difficulty or expense, it may be considered non-essential. Furthermore, it emphasized that employers are not obligated to modify their standards if they can show legitimate business reasons for maintaining them. 4. What accommodations was the plaintiff requesting? Are they reasonable? Why or why not? Would they likely impose an undue hardship? Why or why not? a. Keith sought two specific accommodations: additional training on operating aquatic equipment and allowing him to use a floatation device while on duty. These accommodations were deemed reasonable by the court, as they would enable Keith to perform the essential functions of his job safely and effectively. b. The determination of whether an accommodation imposes an undue hardship requires evaluating factors such as cost, financial resources, and disruption to operations. In this case, the requested accommodations did not appear to impose an undue hardship on Oakland County based on available evidence.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help