Delaware Jury Instruction — 1.5.1 Americans With Disabilities Act 42 USC Sect. 12101 – 12117 Disparate Treatment Claim: Detailed Description and Types Introduction: The Delaware Jury Instruction — 1.5.1 Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) 42 USC Sect. 12101 – 12117 Disparate Treatment Claim aims to provide guidance for judges, juries, and litigants involved in cases related to alleged discrimination against individuals with disabilities. The ADA prohibits discrimination in various areas, including employment, public accommodations, and services provided by state and local governments. Disparate treatment claims under the ADA deal with situations where disabled individuals assert that they have been treated unfairly or less favorably due to their disability. Detailed Description: The jury instruction — 1.5.1 covers the essential elements of a disparate treatment claim under the ADA, enabling jurors to understand the legal framework and criteria for deciding such cases. Below are key points covered in the instruction: 1. Definition of Disparate Treatment: The instruction clarifies that disparate treatment involves differential treatment or adverse actions taken against an individual solely based on their disability. This treatment may manifest through actions such as denial of employment, promotions, or reasonable accommodations, as well as unjustifiable disciplinary measures. 2. Prima Facie Case: Jurors must be informed about the elements typically required to establish a prima facie case for a disparate treatment claim. This involves showing that: — The plaintiff has a disability as defined by the ADA. — The plaintiff is qualified for the position or benefit sought. — The defendant, usually an employer or provider of services, took an adverse action against the plaintiff. — The adverse action occurred because of the plaintiff's disability. 3. Burden of Proof: The instruction highlights the shifting burden of proof in ADA disparate treatment claims. It explains that the plaintiff initially has the burden to establish a prima facie case. If proven, the burden then shifts to the defendant to provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for their actions. The plaintiff must subsequently demonstrate that the given reason is a pretext, and that disability discrimination was the true motivating factor. 4. Available Remedies: Jurors need to understand the potential remedies that may be available in successful disparate treatment claims. This may include back pay, front pay, reinstatement, reasonable accommodations, compensatory and punitive damages (if intentional discrimination is proven), and attorneys' fees. Types of Delaware Jury Instruction — 1.5.1 Americans With Disabilities Act 42 USC Sect. 12101 – 12117 Disparate Treatment Claim: While the specific jury instruction remains the same, the types of disparate treatment claims under the ADA can vary. Here are a few examples: a. Employment Discrimination: Claims against employers who discriminate against disabled individuals during the hiring process, promotions, job assignments, training, or termination. This can encompass instances where reasonable accommodations were denied or individuals were excluded based on stereotypes or assumptions about disabilities. b. Public Accommodations Discrimination: Claims against businesses, hotels, restaurants, or other establishments that deny equal access to their goods or services based on disability. This could involve architectural barriers, lack of accommodation, or refusal to serve disabled individuals. c. Government Services Discrimination: Claims against state or local government entities that fail to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities in accessing public services, such as transportation, education, or public facilities. Conclusion: The Delaware Jury Instruction — 1.5.1 provides a comprehensive understanding of the Americans With Disabilities Act, specifically focusing on disparate treatment claims. By outlining the elements, burden of proof, and potential remedies, this instruction helps ensure fair and informed decision-making in disability discrimination cases.