Vote Trump 2016 !

Vote Trump 2016 !
Trump 2016
Showing posts with label ADA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ADA. Show all posts

Friday, November 14, 2014

Is Obesity Considered a “Disability” Under the ADA?

By Michael Kraemer  , Law.com Contributor


The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”) prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities.  It ensures equal opportunity in employment for disabled persons.  The statute specifically provides that:
No covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.
ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12112(a).
The main question is what constitutes a “disability” under the ADA?  The term “disability” can encompass a lot.  As defined by the ADA, a disability is (1) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual, (2) a record of such an impairment or (3) being regarded as having such an impairment.  The definition can be broken down further. 42 U.S.C. §12102(1).
First, a disability can be a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more “major life activities.”  A “major life activity” can include walking, caring for oneself, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, standing, lifting, etc.  A “major life activity” can also include the operation of a bodily function, such as the immune system, digestive system, brain, respiratory system, etc.  42 U.S.C. §12102(2).


Read more: http://www.law.com/sites/michaelkraemer/2014/11/11/is-obesity-considered-a-disability-under-the-ada/#ixzz3J3cQOgmv

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Ouellette v. Viacom International Inc. - Social Media Leading Cases

Ouellette v. ViacomCV 10–133–M–DWM–JCL; 2011 WL 1882780, found the safe harbor provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) did not create liabilityfor service providers that take down non-infringing works (works having a fair usedefense to copyright infringement). This case limited the claims that can be filed against service providers by establishing immunity for service providers' takedown of fair use material, at least from grounds under the DMCA. The court left open whether another "independent basis of liability" could serve as legal grounds for an inappropriate takedown. Thus, service providers can rest easier knowing that they do not have to do a fair use analysis of content suspected of infringing copyright.

Read the rest at Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouellette_v._Viacom_International_Inc.