Grindle V. Revese Case Study

Question 1: Yes, Revere is because any employer is covered by the ADA. The Act requires employers with 15 or more employees to make rational accommodations for an incapacitated employee and Revere has approximately 800 employees

Question 2: Falstaff is claiming that he was fire due to his disability this is evident form of discrimination. So the theory of discrimination is an unequal treatment. Falstaff could also claim that his termination was a combination of legitimate reasons for example reducing costs with illegitimate reasons incapacity under a mixed motives theory.

Question 3: Falstaff does not meet the requirements to make the claim. According to Grindle v. Watkins, courts use the McDonnell Douglas test to evaluate an ADA claim.
Second, the Plaintiff is incapacitated within the meaning of the ADA. Third, the Plaintiff could have completed the job with rational accommodations. Forth, the Plaintiff was subject to adversative employment action due to the incapacity.
While the first point is easily met, the second is more difficult and the other two points Falstaff does not make the requirements to satisfy the claim. Questions 4 and 5: The 14th Circuit specifically held that obesity was not a covered disability. Though, after the passage of the ADAAA, the Act’s emphasis is not on precise circumstances, but rather on whether or not the incapacity “substantially limits a major life activity.” The ADAAA covers certain incapacities that substantially limit one or more major life activities. The Adams case supports Falstaff’s claim by expanding the definitional framework of the ADA.
Question 5: For example, on Adam’s case involves a diabetes patient that required insulin and meals on a set schedule. No such problem is placed on Falstaff. Falstaff’s condition, though, clearly affect his life activities such as sitting or standing for extended periods.

Question 6 Falstaff’s situation would be that they did not made reasonably accommodate to his