EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: CASE LAW DEVELOPMENTS IN 2011 AND TRENDS TO WATCH FOR IN 2012 PART I
The EEOC, on behalf of Walter Watson, a former employee of the employer, filed an action alleging discrimination and retaliation in violation of the ADA. Watson was diagnosed with HIV in 1999, and began working as a truck driver for the employer in 2002. The EEOC claimed that the employer asked the...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Labor law journal (Chicago) 2012-07, Vol.63 (2), p.93 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 93 |
| container_title | Labor law journal (Chicago) |
| container_volume | 63 |
| creator | Maatman, Gerald L Degroff, Christopher J |
| description | The EEOC, on behalf of Walter Watson, a former employee of the employer, filed an action alleging discrimination and retaliation in violation of the ADA. Watson was diagnosed with HIV in 1999, and began working as a truck driver for the employer in 2002. The EEOC claimed that the employer asked the truck driver trainees to sign acknowledgements that informed them that the trainer suffered from a communicable health condition, allegedly causing Watson stress and requiring him to take a leave of absence. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. It noted that although the employer required potential trainees to sign an acknowledgement form, it did not deny Watson the opportunity to become a trainer, demote him, or reassign him due to his HIV status. The court found that the reasons for the training demotion were legitimate and non-discriminatory. |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1022641697</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2699469831</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_journals_10226416973</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNirsOgjAUQDtoIj7-4SbOJLdFQdwauGgTbAk0MhIHHIgRpfL_MvgBTuck58yYhygCP9wfwgVbOtchYoQxeqwhMomvtLJKWkohn-QkrTL6CImsCHJZQ0pXyk1xIW0rUBoEcg5Sp2BL0mkF1kAtbXKGzJS_LqCQpQW1ZvP77eHazY8rts1oWv3X0L_H1n2arh-H55QajkKEOx7GUfDf9QVJezj5</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1022641697</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: CASE LAW DEVELOPMENTS IN 2011 AND TRENDS TO WATCH FOR IN 2012 PART I</title><source>EBSCOhost Business Source Complete</source><creator>Maatman, Gerald L ; Degroff, Christopher J</creator><creatorcontrib>Maatman, Gerald L ; Degroff, Christopher J</creatorcontrib><description>The EEOC, on behalf of Walter Watson, a former employee of the employer, filed an action alleging discrimination and retaliation in violation of the ADA. Watson was diagnosed with HIV in 1999, and began working as a truck driver for the employer in 2002. The EEOC claimed that the employer asked the truck driver trainees to sign acknowledgements that informed them that the trainer suffered from a communicable health condition, allegedly causing Watson stress and requiring him to take a leave of absence. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. It noted that although the employer required potential trainees to sign an acknowledgement form, it did not deny Watson the opportunity to become a trainer, demote him, or reassign him due to his HIV status. The court found that the reasons for the training demotion were legitimate and non-discriminatory.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0023-6586</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Riverwoods: CCH Incorporated: Health & Human Resources</publisher><subject>Americans with Disabilities Act 1990-US ; Deafness ; Demotions ; Disability ; Employees ; Employers ; Employment ; Employment discrimination ; Federal court decisions ; HIV ; Human immunodeficiency virus ; Interpreters ; State court decisions ; Training ; Verbal communication ; Work environment</subject><ispartof>Labor law journal (Chicago), 2012-07, Vol.63 (2), p.93</ispartof><rights>Copyright CCH Incorporated: Health & Human Resources Summer 2012</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Maatman, Gerald L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Degroff, Christopher J</creatorcontrib><title>EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: CASE LAW DEVELOPMENTS IN 2011 AND TRENDS TO WATCH FOR IN 2012 PART I</title><title>Labor law journal (Chicago)</title><description>The EEOC, on behalf of Walter Watson, a former employee of the employer, filed an action alleging discrimination and retaliation in violation of the ADA. Watson was diagnosed with HIV in 1999, and began working as a truck driver for the employer in 2002. The EEOC claimed that the employer asked the truck driver trainees to sign acknowledgements that informed them that the trainer suffered from a communicable health condition, allegedly causing Watson stress and requiring him to take a leave of absence. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. It noted that although the employer required potential trainees to sign an acknowledgement form, it did not deny Watson the opportunity to become a trainer, demote him, or reassign him due to his HIV status. The court found that the reasons for the training demotion were legitimate and non-discriminatory.</description><subject>Americans with Disabilities Act 1990-US</subject><subject>Deafness</subject><subject>Demotions</subject><subject>Disability</subject><subject>Employees</subject><subject>Employers</subject><subject>Employment</subject><subject>Employment discrimination</subject><subject>Federal court decisions</subject><subject>HIV</subject><subject>Human immunodeficiency virus</subject><subject>Interpreters</subject><subject>State court decisions</subject><subject>Training</subject><subject>Verbal communication</subject><subject>Work environment</subject><issn>0023-6586</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqNirsOgjAUQDtoIj7-4SbOJLdFQdwauGgTbAk0MhIHHIgRpfL_MvgBTuck58yYhygCP9wfwgVbOtchYoQxeqwhMomvtLJKWkohn-QkrTL6CImsCHJZQ0pXyk1xIW0rUBoEcg5Sp2BL0mkF1kAtbXKGzJS_LqCQpQW1ZvP77eHazY8rts1oWv3X0L_H1n2arh-H55QajkKEOx7GUfDf9QVJezj5</recordid><startdate>20120701</startdate><enddate>20120701</enddate><creator>Maatman, Gerald L</creator><creator>Degroff, Christopher J</creator><general>CCH Incorporated: Health & Human Resources</general><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20120701</creationdate><title>EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: CASE LAW DEVELOPMENTS IN 2011 AND TRENDS TO WATCH FOR IN 2012 PART I</title><author>Maatman, Gerald L ; Degroff, Christopher J</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_10226416973</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Americans with Disabilities Act 1990-US</topic><topic>Deafness</topic><topic>Demotions</topic><topic>Disability</topic><topic>Employees</topic><topic>Employers</topic><topic>Employment</topic><topic>Employment discrimination</topic><topic>Federal court decisions</topic><topic>HIV</topic><topic>Human immunodeficiency virus</topic><topic>Interpreters</topic><topic>State court decisions</topic><topic>Training</topic><topic>Verbal communication</topic><topic>Work environment</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Maatman, Gerald L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Degroff, Christopher J</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>ABI商业信息数据库</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM global</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>One Business (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Labor law journal (Chicago)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Maatman, Gerald L</au><au>Degroff, Christopher J</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: CASE LAW DEVELOPMENTS IN 2011 AND TRENDS TO WATCH FOR IN 2012 PART I</atitle><jtitle>Labor law journal (Chicago)</jtitle><date>2012-07-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>63</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>93</spage><pages>93-</pages><issn>0023-6586</issn><abstract>The EEOC, on behalf of Walter Watson, a former employee of the employer, filed an action alleging discrimination and retaliation in violation of the ADA. Watson was diagnosed with HIV in 1999, and began working as a truck driver for the employer in 2002. The EEOC claimed that the employer asked the truck driver trainees to sign acknowledgements that informed them that the trainer suffered from a communicable health condition, allegedly causing Watson stress and requiring him to take a leave of absence. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. It noted that although the employer required potential trainees to sign an acknowledgement form, it did not deny Watson the opportunity to become a trainer, demote him, or reassign him due to his HIV status. The court found that the reasons for the training demotion were legitimate and non-discriminatory.</abstract><cop>Riverwoods</cop><pub>CCH Incorporated: Health & Human Resources</pub></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0023-6586 |
| ispartof | Labor law journal (Chicago), 2012-07, Vol.63 (2), p.93 |
| issn | 0023-6586 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1022641697 |
| source | EBSCOhost Business Source Complete |
| subjects | Americans with Disabilities Act 1990-US Deafness Demotions Disability Employees Employers Employment Employment discrimination Federal court decisions HIV Human immunodeficiency virus Interpreters State court decisions Training Verbal communication Work environment |
| title | EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: CASE LAW DEVELOPMENTS IN 2011 AND TRENDS TO WATCH FOR IN 2012 PART I |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-29T06%3A44%3A35IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=EEOC-INITIATED%20LITIGATION:%20CASE%20LAW%20DEVELOPMENTS%20IN%202011%20AND%20TRENDS%20TO%20WATCH%20FOR%20IN%202012%20PART%20I&rft.jtitle=Labor%20law%20journal%20(Chicago)&rft.au=Maatman,%20Gerald%20L&rft.date=2012-07-01&rft.volume=63&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=93&rft.pages=93-&rft.issn=0023-6586&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E2699469831%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1022641697&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |