This article reports on a brief filed with the Supreme Court by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), agreeing with the Fifth Circuit that vending machines are not themselves “places of public accommodation.” The plaintiff in the case, an individual who is blind, brought the action against Coca-Cola Refreshments USA, Inc. after he encountered vending machines in various locations (a local hospital, a bus station) that he could not use independently.
The lower courts rejected the plaintiff’s claims, finding that vending machines do not meet the definition of “place of public accommodation” and should be viewed merely as equipment used to provide goods within a place of public accommodation; the associated place (e.g. the hospital or bus station) would be responsible for ensuring access to the goods available from the machine.
The DOJ agrees with this view and urged the Supreme Court not to review the case.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) submitted a statement of interest in a case that raised a constitutional challenge to the ADA’s exclusion of “gender identity disorders [GID] not resulting from physical impairments.” DOJ notes that the plaintiff in this case, however, “does appear to allege … that her GID results from a physical impairment.” The plaintiff alleges that she has been diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria, which she describes as a “biological condition, likely due to brain neuroanatomy and the formation of that brain neuroanatomy in the womb.”
Accordingly, DOJ states the plaintiff has alleged that she falls outside the exclusion and within the protections of the ADA. Therefore DOJ urges the court to analyze the case in this light and avoid the constitutional question.
Connections CSP, Inc., one of Delaware's largest non-profit organizations, unlawfully denied reasonable accommodations to a class of employees and fired them pursuant to an inflexible maximum-leave policy, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed.
United Parcel Service Inc. (UPS) reached a $1.7 million agreement with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to settle a nationwide lawsuit challenging the delivery company’s “inflexible 12-month leave policy.” More than 70 workers allegedly harmed by the policy will share in the settlement.