MENU

Disability Law

State Efforts to Rein In ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) Lawsuits - Podcast

Labor & Employment Law Practice Group Podcast
Mark Brnovich July 24, 2017

July 26th will mark the 26th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Enacted in 1990 to prohibit discrimination of the disabled and provide disability access to public accommodations nationwide, it has also been used throughout the years as the basis for thousands of lawsuits across the country. These lawsuits can sometimes result in financial windfalls for trial attorneys with little to no impact on improving access for the disabled community. Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich discussed the strategies his office has employed to ensure this important law is used properly.

Featuring:

  • Hon. Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General

City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 5-27-2015 featuring Tom Gede
Thomas F. Gede May 27, 2015

On May 18, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its decision in City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan. This case asks two questions. The first is whether law enforcement officers are required by the Americans with Disabilities Act to accommodate a mentally ill suspect who is armed and hostile while they are bringing the suspect into custody. The second question is whether it was clearly established that even where an exception to the warrant requirement applied, an entry into a residence could be unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment by reason of the anticipated resistance of an armed and violent suspect within.

In an opinion delivered by Justice Alito, by a vote of 6-2, the Court dismissed the grant of certiorari on the first question as improvidently granted.  On the second question, the Court held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity from suit because they did not violate any clearly established Fourth Amendment rights.  The Chief Justice and Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor joined Justice Alito's majority opinion.  Justice Scalia filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined by Justice Kagan.  Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.  The judgment of the Ninth Circuit was reversed in part and the case remanded.

To discuss the case, we have Tom Gede, who is a principal in Morgan Lewis Consulting LLC and of counsel to Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.

City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 4-8-15 featuring Tom Gede
Thomas F. Gede April 08, 2015

On March 23, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan. This case asks two questions. The first is whether law enforcement officers are required by the Americans with Disabilities Act to accommodate a mentally ill suspect who is armed and hostile while they are bringing the suspect into custody. The second question is whether law enforcement entry into a home could be unreasonable for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, even where a warrant requirement exception existed, if law enforcement officials anticipated an armed, hostile suspect within.

To discuss the case, we have Tom Gede, who is a principal in Morgan Lewis Consulting LLC and of counsel to Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.

U.S. Airways, Inc. V. McCutchen - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 5-7-13 featuring Jason Mendro
Jason Mendro May 07, 2013

Jason MendroOn April 17, 2013, the Supreme Court announced its decision in U.S. Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen. The case considered whether under Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) an injured employee who has medical expenses paid through his employer’s benefit plan--and who then sues and recovers damages from the third party who was responsible for the injury--is required to reimburse the benefit plan in full, even when some of the damages went to cover attorney’s fees.

In an opinion delivered by Justice Kagan, the Court held by a vote of 5-4 that in an ERISA section 502(a)(3) action based on equitable lien by agreement (like that in the present case), the ERISA plan's terms govern. Neither general unjust enrichment principles nor specific doctrines reflecting those principles can override the applicable contract.  Because the plan here is silent with respect to allocating costs of recovery, however, the common-fund doctrine still applies.  As a result, the lower court opinion must be vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings.

Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor joined the majority opinion.  Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito and Thomas.

To discuss the case, we have Jason Mendro, who is a Partner in the Washington, DC office of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher.

[Listen now!]

U.S. Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 11-30-12 featuring Jason Mendro
Jason Mendro November 30, 2012

Jason MendroOn November 27, 2012, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in U.S. Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen. The case considers whether under Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) an injured employee who has medical expenses paid through his employer’s benefit plan--and who then sues and recover damages from the third party who was responsible for the injury--is required to reimburse the benefit plan in full, even when some of the damages went to cover attorney’s fees.

To discuss the case, we have Jason Mendro, who is a Partner in the Washington, DC office of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher.

[Listen now!]