|
 |
Double Amputee's Claim Of Disability Discrimination Rejected Because He Cannot Prove He Was "Qualified" For Bus Driver Job Under ADA July 17, 2000 (Ornel Inc.) Both of Bryant Long's feet had been amputated as a child. In 1995, he applied to work as a bus operator for the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA), but was not hired. Bryant sued under the ADA, claiming that he was rejected because he was disabled. The CTA argued that Long was not "qualified" to work as a bus driver because he failed to submit a waiver from the Department of Transportation (DOT), which was required for partial amputees by both federal and state laws and regulations. Long filed numerous motions with the district court, attempting to show that CTA was required to join in his application for a waiver, and that he had obtained a "training" waiver from DOT. The court, however, dismissed Long's lawsuit, finding that Long was not "qualified" to be a bus driver because it was a prerequisite for a partial amputee to obtain a DOT waiver prior to being hired. The court said the waiver can be obtained by the applicant unilaterally, that the CTA was not required to join in the application. The "training" waiver which Long obtained after filing his lawsuit, the court said, was irrelevant because a full waiver must be obtained prior to the employer's hiring decision. Following the district court's decision in favor of the CTA, Long attempted to amend his lawsuit to add allegations concerning his training waiver and that the CTA refused to hire him for non- driving positions. The district court ruled that Long could not amend his complaint, and could not show a viable claim under the ADA. The court dismissed Long's lawsuit, disallowing him from ever filing it again. The court found that Long's training waiver, obtained in September of 1997, had nothing to do with whether he was "qualified" to be a bus driver on December 18, 1995, when the CTA refused him employment. Also, the court found that Long had not included his claims about a training waiver and CTA's refusal to hire him for non-driving positions in his EEOC charge. Because of this, and because his claims concerning non-driving positions are "unlike" his claims for a bus driver position, the court said Long cannot include these claims in his lawsuit. The court concluded that Long's proposed amendments would not cure the problems with his original lawsuit, and that Long would never be able to succeed in a claim that the CTA violated the ADA. (Long v. Chicago Transit Authority, No. 97-C-1062, 1997 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 19757 (N.D.Ill. December 11, 1997). 19 pages.) Mitchell B. Katten and Roseanne Loftus of O'Rourke & Griffing of Chicago, IL, represented Mr. Long. Kathleen Hope Herrmann, and Glenn William Kaun, of the Chicago Transit Authority, Corporate Law Department, represented the transit authority. Ornel, Inc. Provided by special arrangement with courtcases.net These case digests are for general informational purposes only and should not be relied upon for legal advice. Nothing contained in the case digests creates an attorney/client relationship. Neither Ornel Inc. nor CourtCases.net are engaged in the practice of law. Individual jurisdictions may have rules, statutes, and case law which govern particular factual situations. It is your responsibility to consult an attorney for appropriate legal advice. |
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
