Introduction
In general, the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) has for a while been termed as comprehensive and broad in its effect as a law. There is need to understand various aspects of the ADA about reading the rights awarded to persons living with disability in the United States (Goren, 2014). Having an excellent overview of the ADA requires an in-depth understanding of the various parts of the Act and what they stand for in regards to protecting the rights of persons with disabilities. There have been general discussions in the debate to find out whether there are sufficient statute procedures and obligations to support all aspects of life for the disabled persons. There should be little or no limitations to the law, and any mixed-motive by the jury, when it comes to the disparate treatment of the cases of persons with disability (Goren, 2015). There is a total of five titles that are associated with the Americans Disability Act. The one that will be in focus for this paper will be Title I that applies to the issue of employment. The driver for the interest will be characterized by the analysis of a case where an individual is impaired by their disability and how an institution that employs the person will be viewed under Title I of the statute. It defines the different remedies that could be taken to a situation where an individual has to assess whether they are impaired or not. Also whether the impairment affects their employment, hence calling for leniency when it comes to promotion or giving of tedious tasks that would cause more problems for the individual due to their impairment (Lee, 2007). The question asked in this paper will help understand more about the ADA and how it can be used to analyze a particular case to oversee general procedure of an individual in a court hearing.
Holding of the Case
The event in the question is that of Jerry Kill, who has coached varsity football at the University of Minnesota. He has been a coach for a while in his career, but he has epilepsy. He began his career as a coach from the year 1994, and in his years as a coach, he has suffered severe seizures during different games, and also at other times when he is not working. Despite his condition, the University of Minnesota has not taken any adverse action to his situation and has always allowed him to continue with his work as the head coach. At some point, he finally made the decision to step away from his job for a while until he can regain his strength. So during the fall in 2013, he made the announcement to take a leave from work, but he made a return to the final game against Syracuse at the end of the season.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The question for this would be, how do either of the parties evaluate their rights under the ADA, and how would the matter play out. The discussion will be based on this case and how the ADA applies to the concept of employment and how individuals should assess their treatment by the employers and also how the companies should respond to their employees with living with a disability. But the first question would be whether the ADA applies to this case and if it does what statute indicates this as a case under the ADA. Let’s put things in perspective, the University of Minnesota is deemed subject to the law under Title I of the ADA per 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5)(A) since they have more than 15 employees at their disposal. The other question to be asked in the case is whether the disability exists in the event of Coach Jerry Kill. In the ADA, under section 2 U.S.C. § 12102(1), it states that any person is considered to have an impairment or disability when she/he; (1) has mental or physical disability, which may limit their life's major activities; (2) has a recording of their disability regardless of whether they are currently limited when it comes to their major life activity; (3) are regarded to have a disability. So in the case of Jerry Kill, the holding is that they have epilepsy, which causes seizures and is considered to be impairment. The second holding is that the impairment limits his significant life's activity since the seizures substantially constrain him during games. But it can also be considered to be episodic. If the condition is episodic, then there is an amendment to act as a provision for this case and was first published in January 2011 when it became active. In the provision, 42 U.S.C. § 12102(4)(d), it states that any impairment that is considered to be episodic or even in remission is still a disability if it still substantially limits an individual's major life activity when it is active. It is a holding that has a lot of interesting factors to consider for such a case.
Interest in Case
The case is interesting as it has a lot of interesting points to look at and helps one understand the intricate details about the ADA and how it is applied in real life. There are clear definitions that needed to be clarified such as the substantial limitation to one’s life when an impairment is considered under the ADA, whether the institution in question is also under the statute, and finally the definition of a major life event. All these are aspects of the ADA that have troubled many different persons living with a disability when it comes to employment. I needed to understand how the case of Jerry Kill and the University of Minnesota are related to each other what contribution the ADA, Title I, has on the case. Being a much newer case and also having been amended in 2011, the provisions given to the Act on episodic impairment are kind of interesting. The reason for this is because there have been many questions rose to whether the aspect of episodic impairment can be considered to be a disability that affects an individual’s major life activity.
Another aspect of the case that I found interesting was the fact that medicine for the treatment of Coach Kill’s condition would render the condition to be termed as not a disability under the ADA. But there is also an answer to this very question and in the ADA, under 42 U.S.C. § 12104(E)(i),(ii), considers that any mitigating factors to a condition labeled as substantially limiting for an individual are not factored in when making the assumption of whether someone has a disability or not. Except if the mitigating measures are eyeglasses that are supposed to correct vision entirely. In this case, the mitigating measures for Coach Kill were not as fully correctional and did not offer any full measure for his condition. It is an interesting aspect of the case that also got me interested in wanting to know what other factors are considered to hinder a state from being labeled as a disability under the ADA. It means that other features of disability could be termed valid if they can be fully corrected.
Agreement of Results from the Case
I considered the case to be well handled and all aspects of the issue taken into consideration by the discussion. All matters raised were valid and had a significant contribution to what is held under the ADA including the provisions and other issues that needed clarification. Application of some of the factors of employment for persons with disability can be complicated, but the Title I seem to cover all areas of the right to employment for persons living with a disability (Lee, 2007). There was the case of substantial limitation and episodic impairment, which were new matter raised in the case. I found that these two issues are vital for the outcome of the case and was handled well in the discussion.
The ADA requires that rights awarded to persons with a disability also include reasonable accommodation, including the adjustments or changes to the workplace, which helps a person living with a disability perform their tasks at the workplace. In the case of Jerry Kill, the institution could not have done anything to provide the coach with reasonable accommodation as required by the ADA, Title I, due to the nature of his disability. The only way that the institution would have ensured that there is a reasonable accommodation for the varsity coach is through modified work schedules. The work schedules would have facilitated for the smooth transitioning for the workload and ensuring that the coach is not overwhelmed by work, which would cause his condition to worsen. It is the reason why am in agreement with the discussion about using the ADA for this case in support of the varsity coach. But there is also the issue of the institution having to accommodate the coach and also allowing him to go on with his work despite his impairment. It shows that the University of Minnesota does not discriminate against persons living with a disability under the ADA.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is clear that an organization can be in a position to exceed of what the law may require of them in handling the case of persons with disability. Hence, may put undue hardship on an individual rendering them even more impaired and left with substantial limitation to their major life activities as specified under the ADA.
The University sought to make amends of the coach having seizure episodes by still allowing him to continue working regardless of these limitations. The ADA, confirms that employment should be considered an overview and should not be comprehensive in the case of persons living with a disability.
References
Goren, W. D. (2014). The Americans with Disabilities Act and Employment. Retrieved June 08, 2017, from https://www.americanbar.org/publications/gp_solo/2014/march_april/the_americans_disabilities_act_and_employment.html
Goren, W. D. (2015). Internet Addiction, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Employment. Retrieved June 08, 2017, from http://www.americanbar.org/publications/gp_solo/2015/may-june/internet_addiction_americans_disabilities_act_and_employment.html
Lee, D. (2007). Social Contexts for Enacting the Disability Discrimination ActRelated to the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA). Disability & Employment, 17 (1), 33-52. doi:10.15707/disem.2007.17.1.002
