Barry owns a small software development firm. Barry has an employee who needs
special accommodations in order to be able to perform the functions of his job. These
accommodations would cost $10,000, an amount that Barry believes is more than he
should have to spend. The Americans with Disabilities Act provides that an employer is
required to make “reasonable accommodations” for employees with a disability, but
does not define what constitutes a “reasonable accommodation.” Assume that size of the
employer (by some measure) determines the maximum amount of money that would be
considered reasonable for a particular employer to be required to spend. Under the
principles of stare decisis, which of the following is true?
A) If a similar-size employer had been required to spend $15,000 in the past, then Barry
would be required to spend the $10,000.
B) If a similar-size employer had been required to spend $15,000 in the past, this would
not be relevant in Barry’s case because it happened in the past.
C) If a similar-size employer had not been required to spend $15,000 in the past, then
Barry would not be required to spend $10,000.
D) If a similar-size employer had not been required to spend $15,000 in the past, then
Barry would be required to spend $10,000.
E) A similar-size employer’s situation would be irrelevant because for precedential
value, the other employer would need to be larger than Barry’s firm.
A job applicant in Nashville, Tennessee is told by a particularly despicable human
resources manager that the company already has too many gay workers and too many
Yankees. Even though the applicant is well-qualified, he is not hired because he is gay
and from New York. He could:
A) recover under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
B) recover under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
C) recover, because this is an improper burden on interstate commerce.
D) recover under the Civil Rights Act of 1866.