1.Does Anna have a case here? What are the critical variables?
Yes, Anna has a case here. Anna is well qualified with this position only she has the sclerosis problems. David refuses to hire Anna because of her disabilities. The critical variables for Anna are disabilities, including Multiple Sclerosis and she is a wheelchair user, accommodations, the qualifications, and all her rights under the ADA law. For David, his variables will be the expense, agreement to the specific disabilities of the applicant undue hardship, as well as the compliance to the ADA law.
2.Under the ADA, who is a qualified individual with a disability? If Anna filed a lawsuit, who would have the burden of proving that Anna was (or was not) a qualified employee with a disability? Is it Anna or the Bank?
Under the ADA, “a qualified employee or applicant with a disability is someone who satisfies skills, experience, education and other job related requirements of the position held or desired, and who, with or without reasonable accommodations, can perform the essential functions of that position.” If Anna filed a lawsuit, Anna has the burden of proving that Anna was a qualified employee with a disability.
3.What critical terms related to the Ada must be considered in considering the legal implications of Dave’s decision? How do they apply in this case?
The critical terms to consider the legal implications of Dave’s decision will be “reasonable accommodations” and “undue hardship”. Anna is disabled, and she is also very much qualified to he job, but Dave didn’t consider enough what will Anna actually need to do the job. He stops Anna answering the main concerns.
4.Can expense or cost be a variable when considering “reasonable accommodation”?
Yes. If the bank can prove that, the result will be different.
5.What about Cal’s point that multiple sclerosis is a progressive disease and that Anna will almost certainly get worse, thus creating potential...