|
|
Couture v. Bonfils Memorial Blood Bank, 10th Circuit, Amicus Brief by NELA, et al
- Categories
-
- Resource Type
-
Pleadings and Briefs
- Description
-
Couture v. Bonfils Memorial Blood Bank, Tenth Circuit, January 7, 2005: Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief and Amicus Brief by the Training and Advocacy Support Center, National Employment Lawyers Association, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition, Centers Legal Initiatives Project and the American Association of People with Disabilities. The Legal Center Serving Persons with Disabilities represented the plaintiff on appeal.
The amici here urged reversal on the grounds that the relevant case law and EEOC guidelines all hold that involuntary reassignment is actionable and that to find otherwise would undermine the remedial purpose of all federal and state anti-discrimination laws.
This document contains both the motion for leave to file an amicus brief pursuant to Rule 29(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the amicus brief itself. As per the Rule, the motion for leave addresses the movants interest, desirability of the brief to the court and states that the matters asserted therein are relevant to the disposition of the case. Movants here are either national or Colorado state non-profit advocacy organizations of and/or for people with disabilities. As such, they have expertise in and a significant, on-going interest in the interpretation of anti-discrimination laws. In order to proceed to trial, plaintiffs suing under the ADA and CADA must establish that they suffered some harm in the form of an adverse employment action. Movants concern is that the lower courts holding is incorrect and will have an undesirable impact on public policy and future litigation.
The amicus brief advocates reversal from both stare decis and public policy perspectives. Their research of the plain language of the ADA and CADA, case law and EEOC guidelines dictate the result that an employer may not compel a qualified individual with a disability to accept an accommodation that is neither required nor needed. Employers are not entitled to use anti-discrimination laws in an antithetical way to limit, segregate or remove employees from the public eye because of unreasonable fears and prejudices concerning their disabled status. In determining whether a plaintiff has suffered harm, courts must construe the meaning liberally in order to effectuate the laws remedial purposes. Actionable employment practices include the obvious such as docking pay or responsibilities, but also include requiring an employee to accept different duties or utilize a lesser degree of skill than his previous assignment.
- File
-
Click here to download this document [ 818.57 kB ]
- Published
-
2005-January-07
|
|
