Today’s blog entry is one of those situations where I read a case and asked myself whether the court could have gotten to the same place more elegantly than the way it did. The case of the day is Bruno v. Chasity Wells-Armstrong, here, decided by the Seventh Circuit on February 23, 2024. As

I hope those that celebrated had a happy Hanukkah. Merry Christmas, happy new year, and happy holidays to everyone.

Today’s blog entry is my top 11 or so for the year. As is my past practice, I have included important blog entries that do not make the list . Most of those though were

Yesterday was 9/11 and certainly thinking of everyone.  Also, I appreciate everyone bearing with me on my two week hiatus while my wife and I were abroad. We came back Friday and back to the grind now.

Today’s case is an unpublished decision. Lee v. L3Harris Technologies, Inc., from the Ninth Circuit decided August

In numerous blog entries, we have talked about how magic words are not required. We have also talked about staying away from requests for excessive documentation. The question is how do the two work together. A published decision from the 11th Circuit decided on November 9, 2022, Owens v. State Of Georgia, Gov.’s Office

I was alerted to today’s case, Bledsoe v. Tennessee Valley Authority Board of Directors, a published decision from the Sixth Circuit decided on July 27, 2022, by Jon Hyman, the person behind the Ohio Employers’ Law Blog, who blogged on the case here. As is often the case, I don’t mind blogging on

Before getting started on the blog entry for the week, I want to wish all those celebrating, a happy Jewish new year.

The blog entry of the week comes from an unpublished decision from the 11th Circuit decided on September 19, 2022, Sugg v. City of Sunrise. It deals with the following

An emerging issue is whether when it comes to accommodating a person with a disability in an employment situation, are you accommodating the disability or are you accommodating the essential functions of the job. The easy scenario where that matters is when dealing with an employee with a service dog. Recently, Hobby Lobby was sued