TOV Injury and Safety Blog

ADA standards and regulations set to change

On September 23, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission published its proposed new regulations for administering the Americans with Disabilities Act, which was amended effective January 1st.  According to experts, the new regulations will "significantly lower the standard for an employee to establish that he or she has a covered disability."  The amendment is expected to move the interaction under the ADA from a fight over whether an employee is qualified for consideration under the act to a fight over the employer's duty to make reasonble accommodations.  From the amendment forward, the employee's proofs will primarily be directed to whether the "diability" limits an employee's ability to work or is perceived to perform his or her job.  The new regulations will also take into account "mitigating measures" such as medication, eyeglasses, hearing aids and other measures which formerly precluded an employee from qualifying as "disabled" and eliminated any duty of accommodation.

Sixth Circuit allows jail abuse case to go to jury

William Harris sued the City of Circleville and several individual Ohio State Troopers, after he suffered a spinal injury during incarceration.  Harris was initially stopped for speeding, and ultimately arrested when officers claimed to have found an outstanding misdemeanor warrant. He was handcuffed and the jail videotape was running when officers "took him down" for failing to respond to orders to kneel.

Prosecutor can prohibit civil suit as condition of dropping charges

In Cady v. Arenac County, et al, the Sixth Circuit upheld a prosecutor's management of an assault charge.  When Cady was arrested for battery, the prosecutor agreed to dismiss the criminal action, provided Cady agreed to forego filing a civil claim against the other involved parties for six months.  While on the surface this appears to be a violation of Cady's civil and constitutional rights, the Court of Appeals upheld the prohibition as a reasonable one, given that the ban would last for only six months and appeared to be a reasonable effort to dampen emotions following the civil disturbance.

Jail authorities responsible for quid pro quo sexual assault by supervisory personnel

The Court of Appeals held this week that even outside the employment sector, employers will be responsible for sexual misbehavior by employees in a supervisory role.  Michigan Courts have previously held that employers are not responsible for sexually assaultive behavior by an employee, if the actions are ultra vires, or outside the employee's job responsibility (for example assaults on a patient by respiratory therapist or other ministerial employee).  On the other hand, if the assaultive behavior occurs in a managerial employment context, the mutual employer has been held vicariously responsible. 

in Hamed v. Wayne County, the  Court of Appeals ruled that vicarious responsibility will also exist outside the employment context if the sexually manipulative behavior is facilitated by the assaulting individual's supervisory relationship. 

Court upholds discrimination action against Michigan High School Athletic Ass'n

The Jewish Academy of Metropolitan Detroit sued the MHSAA, alleging discrimination by the pseudo-public agency in scheduling high school athletic events on the Jewish Sabbath and Jewish holidays.  It prevailed in the lower courts and an injunction was issued, limiting the MHSAA's power to schedule activities.  The MHSAA appealed, arguing that the Court had no jurisdictional power to intervene and protect the civil rights of Jewish athletes.  In a brief 3 page opinon, the Court of Appeals dismissed the MHSAA appeal, citing both the Michigan Constitution and the plain language of Michigan's Civil Rights Act, which give the courts subject matter jurisdiction over a denial of civil rights.  The Court required the MHSAA to pay the Academy's attorneys' fees and costs.

Michigan Supreme Court allows judge to regulate witnesses' clothing

On June 17, the Michigan Supreme Court upheld the Hamtramck District Court judge's decision not to allow Ginnah Muhammad to testify in her Small Claims action without exposing her face.  Muhammad is a practicing Muslim who was attempting to contest a $3,000.00 charge from a car rental company, incurred after thieves broke into the car while she was renting it.  The Supreme Court issued an opinion granting judges "reasonable" control over witnesses' appearance after the judge insisted he needed to observe Muhammad's face in order to assess her credibility.

Court upholds suit against hotel that refused to host black couple

Alfreda Keck made a determined effort to schedule her wedding reception at the Kensington Court Hotel, formerly known as the Crowne Plaza, in Ann Arbor.  Her tenacity, over a number of months, in attempting to schedule the event is recited in the Court's opinion in Keck v.  Graham Hotel Systems, Inc.  Somehow, the "Wedding Specialist" was never available to meet with Alfreda or her fiance, however, and never followed-up on their repeated messages and phone calls.  When the Kecks filed a complaint with the Fair Housing Center of Southeast Michigan,  the Wedding Specialist turned out to be more "available" and responsive to white couples than to black couples.  Kecks filed suit for discrimination.