Americans with Disabilities Act
Tayeb Hyderally is an employment lawyer whose experience includes litigating for individuals and corporations in matters pertaining to employment law. Ty Hyderally frequently travels as a keynote speaker where he shares his expertise with corporate officers, human resource personnel and other attorneys. His extensive travels are for the purpose of educating employees and employers about how to keep the workplace free from any form of discrimination. He works closely with company officials to help develop policies which are in compliance with employment laws and regulations. Tayeb Hyderally works to ensure that employees as well as employers are aware of their rights and their responsibilities when it comes to keeping the workplace free from discrimination. In this case, The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleged that the company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by wrongfully terminating an employee based on a disability. Continue Reading
Employment Law has many different facets which can be difficult to understand. Tayeb Hyderally is a highly experienced employment law attorney who has many years of experience at successful litigation in a wide variety of employment law cases. He travels extensively to speak to various groups in order to educate employees and employers regarding the various aspects of how these laws pertain to them in the workplace. Ty Hyderally shares his expertise with various groups making them aware of how they can all ensure the workplace remains free from all forms of discrimination and unfair practices. This case filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against Dillard’s is an example of unfair practices as it applies under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Continue Reading
The EEOC is in existence to enforce federal laws which prohibit discrimination in the workplace. When an employee feels that a discriminatory act has occurred, they can file a complaint with the EEOC. It is also wise to seek council with an attorney who is an expert at employment law. Many times in cases of workplace discrimination a case is not sought because the individual does not recognize the act as discriminatory. It is very important for those who suspect this type of illegitimate activity on the behalf of an employer to seek council from experts such as Tayeb Hyderally. Such is the case involving a worker who was terminated once she asked for time off to have a life saving surgery.
The EEOC Claim
There are not too many cases in which a heart condition can be considered a disability which is covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act. (ADA) However, in New Hampshire the EEOC did charge a Nashua company under the ADA. The company terminated Nancy Hajjar because of her heart condition. Windmill International, Inc. terminated Ms. Hajjar one week after she requested time off for a heart procedure which would clear her clogged arteries and she stated she may possibly need heart surgery as well. According to the EEOC, this was potentially a life-threatening impairment. Continue Reading
The world of employment law can be rather complex, especially when it comes to defining terms as it relates to disability and discrimination. One area that expert lawyers such as Ty Hyderally must correctly interpret is what makes reasonable accommodation. What makes this so difficult to determine is that what might be a reasonable accommodation for one, would not work for another; this means it is determined on a case by case basis which can be complicated. Those interested in employment law have their eyes on a case which involves reasonable accommodations and whether or not a location transfer meets the criteria.
Sanchez vs. Vilsak
Ms. Sanchez is employed by the United States Forest Service. After falling at work she suffered irreversible brain damage which affects her vision. She totally lost the left side in her field of vision. The Tenth Circuit appellate court is set to determine if her employer must consider it a reasonable accommodation to transfer her to another location. Under the Rehabilitation Act the court found that it is a reasonable accommodation to ask for a transfer so that she can receive adequate medical treatment and care.
Sanchez’s Request for Transfer
In this disability discrimination case, Clarice Sanchez did request a transfer so that she could be in a location which is closer to a medical facility. The facility provides her treatment for the lost field of vision due to the work place accident. The employer denied her request for a transfer and they asserted that according to the federal disability discrimination laws they are not required to grant such a transfer to an employee only for the purpose of receiving medical treatment. They also asserted that Sanchez was able to “correct” her vision impairment by just “turning her head.” Continue Reading
The courts are still attempting to determine the boundaries as they are set forth in disability discrimination cases. The EEOC is in place to enforce laws which make it illegal to discriminate against an individual in the workplace based on a disability. The trouble seems to be determining what a “disability” really is. It must be a condition which substantially limits at least one major life activity. Employment law experts can help individuals decipher the guidelines as they are laid out by the ADA. Discrimination of workers based on limiting disabilities is illegal in the workplace. Tayeb Hyderally is an expert at employment law and keeps up on cases which pertain to employment law as it relates to disability discrimination.
EEOC vs. Cottonwood Financial Ltd
The EEOC filed a case against Cottonwood Financial stating that they erroneously terminated store manager Sean Reilly. The company allegedly fired him because they thought he was too disabled to work because he has bipolar disorder. Reilly was under the care of a physician and was actively working to control his disability while attending school and attempting to secure employment. He had been an honor student when he was in high school and had begun attending college in Portland, Oregon while on a scholarship based on academic excellence. While he was in college he was diagnosed as having bipolar disorder. His symptoms worsened and he was forced to withdraw from school at which time he returned to Texas and began working at The Cash Store in Cottonwood, Texas. Continue Reading
This blog post was written by Tayeb Hyderally; Ty Hyderally (as he is known) is an employment lawyer in New Jersey and is a super lawyer.
Employment laws are written with the intent that those who wish to work and have the ability to work should be allowed to work. There should be no discrimination in the workplace regarding age, gender, marital standing, race, skin color, sexual preference or disabilities. IF a person is willing and able to perform a job it should be their right to do so.
The ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) took other discrimination laws a step further to include those who had disabilities but are still capable of functioning and performing designated job duties. ADA prohibits any form of discriminatory practices against a worker based on a mental or physical handicap. The ADA also requires employers to make any type of necessary and reasonable accommodations for their disabled workers. These accommodations must be within reason and not cause a undue hardship on the business. An individual who has a disability for which accommodations should be made is someone who is “substantially limited” in their main daily activities. Examples may include the addition of ramps for ease of access or redesign of a desk or office area to make it possible for them to work in the designated space.
Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 explains that Congress and States are also required to be in compliance with ADA. Federal agencies are not exempt either. ADA also allows the recovery of legal fees for those who file a suit and it is found that they were discriminated against in the workplace because of an existent disability.
Another facet of Title V also prohibits any type of negative actions against a disabled person. These include actions such as coercion, threats or retaliation in any way. This law stands to also protect those who attempt to help the disabled person assert their rights under ADA.