Oakland Michigan Jury Instruction - 1.5.1 Americans With Disabilities Act 42 USC Sect. 12101 - 12117 Disparate Treatment Claim

• Category: Federal - Jury Instructions - Adverse Employment Action
• State: Multi-State
• County: Oakland
• Control #: US-11CF-1-5-1
• Format: Word; Rich Text

Description

This form contains sample jury instructions, to be used across the United States. These questions are to be used only as a model, and should be altered to more perfectly fit your own cause of action needs.

Oakland Michigan Jury Instruction — 1.5.1 Americans With Disabilities Act 42 USC Sect. 12101 – 12117 Disparate Treatment Claim The Oakland Michigan Jury Instruction — 1.5.1 addresses the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and focuses specifically on disparate treatment claims under this legislation. The ADA, encompassing Sections 12101 to 12117 of Title 42 of the United States Code (USC), prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in various aspects of their lives. Disparate treatment claims pertain to situations where an individual with a disability alleges that they have been treated differently and less favorably compared to individuals without disabilities, based on their disability status. This instruction guides the jury on how to analyze and evaluate such cases. Key elements of Oakland Michigan Jury Instruction — 1.5.1: 1. Definition of Disparate Treatment: The instruction explains the concept of disparate treatment, emphasizing that it involves intentional discrimination against individuals with disabilities. It outlines that treatment based on stereotypes, biases, or negative assumptions about disabilities would potentially violate the ADA. 2. Prima Facie Case: The instruction outlines the elements required to establish a prima facie case for a disparate treatment claim under the ADA. These typically include demonstrating that the individual has a disability as defined by the ADA, that they are qualified to perform the essential functions of the job or participate in activities covered by the ADA, and that they were subjected to adverse treatment due to their disability. 3. Defendant's Intent: The instruction addresses the importance of proving the defendant's intent to discriminate against the plaintiff. It clarifies that the plaintiff must establish that their disability was a motivating factor behind the adverse treatment, meaning that the defendant's actions were influenced by the plaintiff's disability. 4. Burden Shifting: The instruction describes the burden-shifting framework typically employed in disparate treatment claims. This framework includes the initial burden on the plaintiff to establish a prima facie case, followed by the burden on the defendant to offer a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for their actions, and finally, the burden back on the plaintiff to demonstrate that the defendant's explanation was a pretext for discrimination. 5. Damages and Remedies: The instruction provides information on the potential damages and remedies available to the plaintiff if they succeed in their disparate treatment claim. These may include compensation for lost wages, emotional distress, injunctive relief (such as reinstatement or accommodation), and potentially punitive damages in certain circumstances. It is important to note that while this description covers the general aspects of Oakland Michigan Jury Instruction — 1.5.1 for ADA disparate treatment claims, there may be additional, more specific variations or subcategories of instructions tailored to different cases or specific circumstances. These variations typically depend on the unique facts and legal nuances involved in each instance of a disparate treatment claim under the ADA.