This is my final draft of my law memo pleas provide feedback

To: Maryellen Maley Esq

From: Michelle Gordon-Releford

Date: December 12, 2021

Re: Janice Blake ADA Chicago Daily Times

The question presented:

Whether it is likely that the Chicago Daily Times (CDT) will be found liable for discrimination against its employee, Janice Blake (Blake), a secretary, under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Janice Blake, a secretary, could no longer type due to her rheumatoid arthritis. She also refused to use the dictation tool provided by human resources to assist her in completing her typing assignments and was subsequently fired.

Brief answer:

No. The ADA prohibits discrimination and subsequent discharge of an employee based upon the employee's actual or perceived disability. If this disability prevents the employee from performing essential job functions, the employer must provide reasonable accommodation. Accommodations include but are not limited to providing equipment that assists the employee in performing essential functions of their job. Rejecting reasonable accommodation prohibits an employee from succeeding in an action under the ADA. Janice Blake was disabled as her rheumatoid arthritis made it difficult, if not impossible, to complete the essential job function of typing. However, The Chicago Daily Times provided Blake with a dictation tool to assist her with completing her typing assignments. Blake refused to use this accommodation. Therefore, Blake cannot succeed in an action under the ADA.

Statement of facts:

Our Client, the Chicago Daily Times, is being sued by a former employee, Janice Blake. Blake was a secretary at CDT for three years. Janice Blake was a secretary whose responsibilities included; scheduling, answering phones, and typing. The plaintiff worked primarily with John O'Malley, an editor.

One year ago, the plaintiff was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis symptoms. John O'Malley, the editor, complained that he missed deadlines due to the plaintiff's inability to type as she did in the past. The plaintiff communicated her arthritis with the defendant's human resources department (H.R.). H.R. suggested and provided the plaintiff with Dragon dictation software to utilize as she receives documents from the editors.

After two weeks of use, the plaintiff found the dictation software provided frustrating. Blake found she still had to make edits to the dictation. The provided software did increase the plaintiff's turnaround time on documents which satisfied John O'Malley, her primary editor. Janice refused to use the provided software and asked for a transfer to another position. H.R. communicated the absence of other jobs that did not require typing. The plaintiff refused to use the dictation software and could not provide the necessary typing services, resulting in termination from her position. Blake is now suing under the ADA. CDT seeks to determine whether Blake is likely to prevail on her ADA claim.

Discussion:

To allege a prima facie case of employment discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must show that: (1) he is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) he is qualified to perform the essential functions of his job either with or without reasonable accommodation; and (3) he suffered from an adverse employment decision because of his disability 42 U.S.C.S. 12102(2)(C).

In this case, Blake did show she is disabled within the meaning of the ADA. The CDT regarded Blake as disabled and provided Dragon dictation software as an accommodation. However, Blake was dissatisfied with the accommodation, refused to utilize the accommodation, and requested an unavailable transfer. Therefore, the remaining issue is whether Blake suffered from an adverse employment decision because of her disability.

The first element does not require a plaintiff to be disabled; it is enough that he shows the employer regarded him as having an impairment that substantially limits a significant life activity. 42 U.S.C.S. 12102(2)(C). Major life activities have significance to the general population, not just those that are significant to the plaintiff Id. The defendant acknowledged the plaintiff's disability by providing accommodations when the plaintiff could no longer type. According to the ADA, it is enough that they show the employer regarded them as having an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity. 42 U.S.C. 12102(2)(C); Pugh, 259 F.3d at 626. In Franklin v. Ingalls Memorial Hospital, the plaintiff could work in her profession with or without reasonable accommodations. The plaintiff can continue working in her current profession except for the defendant's hospital Franklin p4. The defendant did not perceive the plaintiff as having an impairment that substantially limited her from working as a nurse Franklin p4. The courts decided on summary judgment for the defendant.

The court reasoned that Franklin has not successfully carried her burden of showing that she is disabled under the definition of the ADA Franklin p3. The court also reasoned that Ingalls knew of Franklin's other positions as a nurse and could not have perceived she was unable to perform as a nurse Franklin p4. The presence of a medical condition that prevents potential employees from performing a specific job is a legitimate reason to deny an application and, in some cases, the occasional reason for added scrutiny of an applicant Franklin p4.

In the case of Gretzky v. Office of the Chief Judges of Judicial Circuits, the plaintiff was not entitled to relief under the ADA. The plaintiff refused reasonable accommodations provided by the defendant. Therefore, the court reasoned that the resolution of interpretation of a superseded law because, even if the plaintiff has a disability, she is not entitled to relief under the ADA for other reasons: she is not a qualified individual, and she rejected the reasonable accommodations that were offered Gretzky p6. In summary, based on the cases provided above, the plaintiff was accommodated, yet she refused her accommodations, voiding her ability to claim summary judgment under the definition of the ADA Gretzky p6.

In the case of Schmidt v. Methodist Hospital, the plaintiff was not entitled to relief under the ADA. The court reasoned that the plaintiff was reasonably accommodated, and reassignment is one among many alternative accommodations that an employer may offer Schmidt p2. A reasonable accommodation under the ADA: reassignment to a vacant position, acquisition or modification of equipment or devices, job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, training materials, etc. 42 U.S.C. 12102(2)C. Employers are not required to find another job for an employee who is not qualified for the job they were doing Schmidt p2. Any reasonable accommodation by the employer is sufficient to meet its accommodation obligation Schmidt p2.

Application:

In Blake's case, she could complete her job duties with the Dragon software. Blake requested a transfer to a job without typing, and there was nothing available. Like the Franklin case, Blake could continue working in her position with accommodations. After accommodations, Blake was still considered disabled; however, frustration with the supplied accommodations does not warrant the accommodation as unreasonable.

In the case of Blake, she wanted a transfer after being provided the Dragon software. Like the Schmidt case, the court reasoned that reasonable accommodations could vary, and employers are not required to find another job for an employee who is not qualified for the job they were doing Schmidt p2. Blake completed her job duties with the Dragon software, however in her frustration, she refused to use it and was terminated subsequently. The CDT was not responsible for creating a new position for Blake.

In Blakes case, the CDT acknowledged her as having a disability; however, the plaintiff refused reasonable accommodations provided by the defendant, and like in the case of Gretzky v. Office of the Chief Judges of Judicial Circuits, the courts reasoned the resolution of interpretation of a superseded law because, even if the plaintiff has a disability, she is not entitled to relief under the ADA for other reasons: she is not a qualified individual, and she rejected the reasonable accommodations.

Instead of utilizing the Dragon software provided by the CDT Blake reasonable accommodations, Blake was provided accommodations; however, this does not confirm a disability that stops her from working other jobs. In summary, based on the cases provided above, the plaintiff was accommodated, yet she refused her concessions, voiding her ability to claim summary judgment under the definition of the ADA.