ASSIGNMENT
1.Plaintiff, Beth Lyons, a staff attorney for the Legal Aid Society (Legal Aid) brought suit against her employer, alleging that Legal Aid violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act by failing to provide her with a parking space near her office. Plaintiff worked for defendant in its lower Manhattan office. Lyon’s disability was the result of being struck and nearly killed by an automobile. For six years from the date of the accident, Lyons was on disability leave from Legal Aid; she underwent multiple reconstructive surgeries and received “constant” physical therapy. Since the accident, Lyons has been able to walk only by using walking devices, including walkers, canes, and crutches. Since returning to work, Lyons has performed her job duties successfully. Nevertheless, her condition severely limits her ability to walk long distances either at one time or during the course of a day. Before returning to work, Lyons asked Legal Aid to accommodate her disability by providing her a parking space near her office and the courts in which she would practice. She stated that this would be necessary because she is unable to take public transportation from her home in New Jersey to the Legal Aid office in Manhattan because such “commuting would require her to walk distances, climb stairs, and on occasion to remain standing for extended periods of time,” thereby “overtax[ing] her limited physical capabilities.” Lyons’s physician advised Legal Aid by letter that such a parking space was “necessary to enable [Lyons] to return to work.” Legal Aid informed Lyons that it would not pay for a parking space for her. Accordingly, Lyons has spent $300 to $520 a month, representing 15 percent to 26 percent of her monthly net salary, for a parking space adjacent to her office building. Are the accommodations requested by Lyons unreasonable? Why or why not?
2. The Steamship Clerks Union has approximately 124 members, 80 of whom are classified as active. Members serve as steamship clerks who, during the loading and unloading of vessels in the port of Boston, check cargo against inventory lists provided by shippers and consignees. The work is not taxing; it requires little in the way of particular skills. On October 1, 1980, the Union formally adopted the membership sponsorship policy (the MSP), which provided that any applicant for membership in the Union (other than an injured longshoreman) had to be sponsored by an existing member for his application to be considered. The record reveals, without contradiction, that (a) the Union had no African American or Hispanic members when it adopted the MSP; (b) blacks and Hispanics constituted from 8 percent to 27 percent of the relevant labor pool in the Boston area; (c) the Union welcomed at least thirty new members between 1980 and 1986 and then closed the membership rolls; (d) all “sponsored” applicants during this period and, hence, all the new members were Caucasian; and (e) every recruit was related to (usually the son or brother of) a Union member. After conducting an investigation and instituting administrative proceedings, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought suit, alleging that the Union had discriminated against African Americans and Hispanics by means of the MSP. Explain whether or not the EEOC will prevail.
3. Johnson Controls implemented a policy that women who are pregnant or who are capable of bearing children would not be placed in jobs involving lead exposure. In April 1984, employees filed a class action lawsuit challenging Johnson Controls’ fetal-protection policy as sex discrimination that violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Among the individual plaintiffs were Mary Craig, who had chosen to be sterilized to avoid losing her job; Elsie Nason, a fifty-year-old divorcee, who had suffered a loss in compensation when she was transferred out of a job that exposed her to lead; and Donald Penney, who had been denied a request for a leave of absence for the purpose of lowering his lead level because he intended to become a father. Discuss whether the plaintiffs have a valid cause of action.
4. Ella Williams began working at Toyota’s automobile manufacturing plant in Georgetown, Kentucky, in August 2010. She was placed on an engine fabrication assembly line, where her duties included work with pneumatic tools. Use of these tools eventually caused pain in her hands, wrists, and arms. She sought treatment at Toyota’s in-house medical service, where she was diagnosed with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and bilateral tendinitis. Williams consulted a personal physician who placed her on permanent work restrictions that precluded her from lifting more than 20 pounds or from “frequently lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 10 pounds,” engaging in “constant repetitive … flexion or extension of [her] wrists or elbows,” performing “overhead work,” or using “vibratory or pneumatic tools.” In light of these restrictions, for the next two years, Toyota assigned Williams to various modified duty jobs. Nonetheless, Williams missed some work for medical leave and eventually filed a claim under the Kentucky Workers’ Compensation Act. The parties settled this claim, and Williams returned to work. Upon her return, Toyota placed Williams on a team in Quality Control Inspection Operations (QCIO). QCIO is responsible for four tasks: (1) “assembly paint,” (2) “paint second inspection,” (3) “shell body audit,” and (4) “ED surface repair.” Williams was initially placed on a team that performed only the first two of these tasks, and for a couple of years, she rotated on a weekly basis between them. Williams was physically capable of performing both of these jobs, and her performance was satisfactory. During the fall of 2016, Toyota announced that it wanted QCIO employees to be able to rotate through all four of the QCIO processes. Williams therefore received training for the shell body audit job, in which team members apply a highlight oil to the hood, fender, doors, rear quarter panel, and trunk of passing cars at a rate of approximately one car per minute. The highlight oil has the viscosity of salad oil, and employees spread it on cars with a sponge attached to a block of wood. After they wipe each car with the oil, the employees visually inspect it for flaws. Wiping the cars required respondent to hold her hands and arms up around shoulder height for several hours at a time. A short while after the shell body audit job was added to Williams’s rotations, she began to experience pain in her neck and shoulders. However, she could still brush her teeth, wash her face, bathe, tend her flower garden, fix breakfast, do laundry, and pick up around the house. Williams requested that Toyota accommodate her medical conditions by allowing her to return to doing only her original two jobs in QCIO, which Williams claimed she could still perform without difficulty. Toyota refused. Subsequently Williams was terminated. Williams sued Toyota for failing to provide her with a reasonable accommodation as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Explain whether Williams has a successful cause of action against Toyota.
