California Bar Journal
OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA - FEBRUARY 2000
spacer.gif (810 bytes)
spacer.gif (810 bytes)

California Bar Journal

The State Bar of California


REGULARS

spacer.gif (810 bytes)
Front Page - February 2000
spacer.gif (810 bytes)
News Briefs
Appeal court denies bar's petition to reverse Brosterhous
Fee bill introduced
Bar fee arb program gears up
David Bryson, Loren Miller recipient, dies at 58
Board to name one to Judicial Council
spacer.gif (810 bytes)
You Need to Know
spacer.gif (810 bytes)
Opinion
From the President - For our system to work, we need to be involved
Let's let public lawyers take a seat at the table
The illusion of a cosmetic fix
Letters to the Editor
spacer.gif (810 bytes)
MCLE Self-Study
The Supreme Court and the ADA
Self-Assessment Test
MCLE Calendar of Events
spacer.gif (810 bytes)
Appointments
Access commission seeks members for 2 positions
Apply to serve on a bar committee
Bar seeks applicants for ABA delegates
Judge evaluation positions open
spacer.gif (810 bytes)
Discipline
Ethics Byte - 'Rampant' conflicts in a new economy
Attorney suspected of soliciting murder of bar prosecutor
Attorney Discipline
spacer.gif (810 bytes)
Legal Tech - If the hype is right, ASPs are H-O-T
spacer.gif (810 bytes)
Public Comment

MCLE SELF-STUDY

spacer.gif (810 bytes)
Self-Assessment Test
spacer.gif (810 bytes)
Answer the following questions after reading the MCLE article on the ADA. Use the answer form provided to send the test, along with a $20 processing fee, to the State Bar. Please allow at least eight weeks for MCLE certificates to reach you in the mail.

1. To state a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a plaintiff must establish that he or she has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity.

2. The ADA is particularly suited for bringing class action lawsuits for discriminatory treatment.

3. As the governmental agency charged with implementing regulations to implement the employment provisions of the ADA, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commis-sion’s Interpretive Guidelines on the definition of disability are due substantial deference from the courts.

4. Even though an individual may have a physical or mental impairment that by itself is substantially limiting, it will not qualify as a “disability” under the ADA if the individual has taken corrective measures that mitigate the effects of the impairment such that it is not substantially limiting in a major life activity.

5. An individual who has taken corrective measures to enable him or her to function in society still could state a claim under the ADA in appropriate circumstances.

6. After the Sutton trilogy, it is clear that the act of working is considered a “major life activity.”

7. A plaintiff attempting to state a claim under the ADA should not rely on the general nature of his or her disability, but should offer specific evidence of its limiting effects on him or her.

8. Congress made specific reference in the ADA to an estimated number of Americans with disabilities, which contributed to the Supreme Court’s conclusion that individuals who have corrected their disabilities were not intended by Congress to be included in the act.

9. Employers are free to prefer one physical characteristic over another without running afoul of the ADA.

10. An employer who decides that a physical impairment makes an applicant less desirable for a job than another by definition has violated the ADA.

11. If an employer concludes that an individual’s impairment precludes that individual from performing a job, the employee falls within the “regarded as having a disability” provision of the act.

12. Evidence that the employer offered an employee other positions within the company will help defeat a claim that the employer regarded that individual as having a disability.

13. The court’s decision in Murphy demonstrates that an individual who takes corrective measures will not meet the definition of disability, even if limitations persist despite the corrective measures.

14. When considering corrective measures that mitigate the effects of an impairment, a court will look at the body’s own attempts (consciously or not) to adjust to the impairment, as well as artificial aids, like medications and devices.

15. When an individual has established that he has an impairment that requires him or her to engage in a major life activity in a significantly different manner than an average person in the population, the individual comes within the definition of disabled under the ADA.

16. A company’s implementation of an across-the-board preclusion from certain jobs because of an impairment necessarily will violate the ADA.

17. Employers may rely on government regulations establishing minimum standards for health and safety as essential functions of the job.

18. The EEOC has no authority to carry out the provisions of the ADA.

19. If a waiver of government standards of safety in fact modifies those standards to some degree, an employer would put itself at risk by relying on the original standards and ignoring the waiver program.

20. The three cases decided by the Supreme Court in June 1999 provide a complete and thorough examination of all issues that arise under the ADA.

Certification

This activity has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of California in the amount of 1 hour.

The State Bar of California certifies that this activity conforms to the standards for approved education activities prescribed by the rules and regulations of the State Bar of California governing minimum continuing legal education.