Poore V Bristol Case Summary

My first take-away came reading the Poore v. Peterbilt of Bristol Case. While I was reading this case, I was sure that Mr. Poore had established a claim under GINA since he was terminated three days after he disclosed his wife had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. I assumed he was covered under GINA because it is unlawful to discharge an employee because of the genetic tests of an individual's family members. This was an important take-away for me because it helped me understand what constitutes “genetic information with respect to the employee” to successfully establish a claim.

My second take-away derived from the face to face discussion on ADA reasonable accommodations. Before Thursday’s class, I understood that employers must make reasonable accommodations when requested by employees as long as it did not cause an undue hardship for the business. In the instance that the request was denied because the business alleges they do not have money to pay for it in a specific department and a complaint is brought up, I assumed that the company had a valid reason for the denial. However, Dr. Weisman explained that when investigators are conducting the investigation, they will ask to see all other department’s budgets. The fact that I now know that all budgets will be looked over made this an important take-away.
I used to work for a non-profit and heard that volunteers could file age discrimination claims. However, by reading this article it comes to my attention that volunteers are not protected against age discrimination since it is not paid work. I identify this as an important take-away because I learned that if it’s not paid work, then you are not protected under the American with Disabilities