Violations under American Disability Act Case Study

Violations under American Disability Act - Case Study Example The foregoing violations shall be discussed individually. First, the American Disability Act (ADA) â€Å"applies to disabilities that affect a major life activity, and those areas of coverage are vision, mental and motor skills, ability to care for one’s self and commute to employment†. In the case of Miss Clark, the fact that she is blind has been known to the company for a long time, as she holds the Vice-President position. Even though she is suffering from visual impairment, it did not prevent her from fulfilling her duties and responsibilities as the Vice-President of the company. However, due to her physical disability, the company refused to promote her to the position of Senior Vice-President because they think that she is not capable enough to carry-out the functions of an SVP. In spite of this physical defect, she has remained loyal to the company and worked for them in several years. Without a doubt, there is a clear violation of the law when the employer pre vented the career advancement of Miss Clark by denying her of the position of the Senior Vice-President. ... f the major life activities of such individual; Second: A record of such impairment, or being regarded as having such impairment; and Third: Accordingly, to fall within this definition, one must have an actual disability, have a record of disability or be regarded of having one. Verily, in the light of the justifications provided by law, Miss Clark has a valid cause of action against her employer as the above requisites have been complied with and she can file a claim against her employer. The employers must take judicial of the fact that both the state laws and the federal laws give protection to employees who have been victims of discrimination because of a disability, and entitles them to file claims for damages. This is pursuant to the principle of â€Å"disparate treatment enunciated in the case of Raytheon Vs. Hernandez (540 U.S. 44 (2003)  298 F.3d 1030), where the Supreme Court held that in addition that disparate impact claims are also available to workers based on facial ly neutral policies that impact qualified individuals with disabilities differently than workers without disabilities†. Another glaring violation committed by her employer is against the provisions of â€Å"The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, or ERISA. The law was enacted to â€Å"protect the employees’ justified expectation of receiving the benefits their employers promise them, and ensures that employees will not be left empty-handed once employers have guaranteed them certain benefits upon retirement† (Bennet-Alexander and Hartman 742). Under ERISA, Miss Clark has a legal standing to sue her employer for illegally termination when she was forced to resign and accept diminished retirement benefit package being offered by the company, which she later on refused for violations