Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
EEOC Issues Q&A on Cancer in the Workplace
Earlier this year, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a set of questions and answers about cancer in the workplace and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC addressed five major areas on whether and when cancer is a disability under the ADA:
- Questions that may and may not be asked of job applicants who may have cancer;
- Questions that may and may not be asked of an employee who has cancer;
- An employer's obligation to keep medical information regarding an employee's cancer confidential;
- An employer's obligations to accommodate employees with cancer; and
- Whether and when an employee's cancer may be considered a “direct threat” which prevents an employee from performing his or her job.
The Q&A does not contain much in the way of new information, but rather gives examples that help illustrate the position the EEOC will take on issues regarding cancer as a disability. Since these are the types of issues that often puzzle human resources managers ' and land on the desk of in-house counsel ' the EEOC's Q&A serves to provide some assistance on how to handle these issues.
Cancer as a Disability
The EEOC rearticulates that cancer is a disability under the ADA when the cancer or its side effects substantially limit one or more of a person's major life activities. Thus, in one EEOC example, a woman with breast cancer who is ill and exhausted from treatment such that she cannot perform routine activities such as cooking, shopping, or household chores, has a disability because her cancer substantially limits her ability to care for herself. Likewise, an individual with advanced testicular cancer who has had chemotherapy rendering him sterile has a disability because he is substantially limited in the major life activity of reproduction.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.