Benefit from Our Service: Save 25%
Along with the first order offer - 15% discount (with the code "get15off"), you save extra 10% since we provide 300 words/page instead of 275 words/pageChalfant v.Titan
Chalfant must do a lot to ensure that he meets all the requirements for a case under ADA.The prerequisites of a case to be filed under Americans with Disability Act are many. The following conditions must be met by Chalfant to establish his case under ADA. The plaintiff, that is Chalfant, must ensure that his status of disability is recognized by ADA.Chalfant should ensure that his disability has a meaning with regard to what the ADA stipulates in terms of disability.
Another condition that Chalfant must meet is that he must have been willing to work under any conditions (Gruender&Smith 2007). This is to say that Chalfant must have been determined and worked hard even if he was oppressed by his seniors
Lastly Chalfant must have experienced adverse employment problems due to disability. It explains that Chalfant must have suffered a lot when it comes to delivery at work place. This is majorly attributed to his disability. This made his time at work hectic and troublesome. These are some of the conditions that Chalfant had to meet for his case to be filed under ADA.Chalfant had to try all means to make his case meet these conditions so that a fair judgment is passed on his case.
The question of whether Chalfant met the conditions as stipulated by the ADA is important for a fair and sound judgment to be made by the judges.
Chalfant appears to have met all the conditions that were required and stipulated under Americans with Disability Act. ADA defines disability in three major ways. The first one is that disability is a physical or mental impairment that limits one from engaging in major duties of life.
Chalfant suffered from arthritis of the neck, back and hands. This qualifies his disability status with respect to the stipulated conditions under ADA(Gruender &Smith 2007). It limited him from carrying out heavy duties such as lifting heavy forklifts. ADA also defines disability as the state of having a record of such impairment. It should be something that is well known by people for a period of time.
Chalfants disability is reflected in the carpal tunnel surgery that he underwent prior. He later went through a heart bypass surgery. All these gave a documentary record of his impairment status. He had suffered the disability for some years. Though he qualified for the job, his application was turned down because of the claims that he was impaired.
It is stipulated that a person is only said to be disabled if the employer mistakenly believe that that the employee has an impairment which limits his or her major activities in life. It is also stated that a person is disabled if the employer mistakenly believes that an actual impairment limits one from carrying out his or her major duties in life. Chalfant met all these conditions. All his supervisors were aware of his disability status. Under these stipulations, major life time activities included: performing manual tasks, walking and speaking. Chalfants disability hindered him from performing most of the manual tasks.
Chalfant suffered a lot at his work place due to disability. His disability brought biasness in terms of job distribution. He was restricted on some jobs due to his disability. They shunned his practicality element on claims that he was unsuitable for office.
Chalfant was disabled and therefore missed a lot of job classes. He deserved justice because even his age does not warrant such treatment.
Punitive damages are so appropriate when the employer acts with malice or indifference to an employees protected rights (Gruender& Smith 2007). Titanic acted with a lot of malice towards Chalfants case. This deserved justice through a court battle. The employer took advantage of the application that Chalfant had made before. Chalfant had made his disability status clear via the job application. This was vivid because Chalfants doctor had prescribed that he had to go through a functional capacity examination. Titan used his disability revelation as a way to turn down his job application.
Titan claimed that the confession made by him about his disability showed that he could not carry out a wide range of jobs. This provided them with an opportunity to deny Chalfants application. This denial was improper according to the stipulations of ADA and deserved a penalty of paying the plaintiff for punitive damages.
Chalfant had all the fundamental qualifications since he had a prior experience. He was discriminated on claims that he did not qualify for the job. This is because he could not do the strenuous parts of the job. An example of the harsh times is that the supervisors expected him to walk for long distances but his disability status could not allow him. The employer formulated a blind excuse to eliminate him even after he had confessed that he could walk long distances from his previous job. The employer claimed that his disability could not guarantee him a job.
The refusal to hire him because of discrimination deserves a penalty which must carried out through payment for damages. He had earned a lot of experience through past jobs and was suitable for the job. However, he was undermined on the basis of disability. This deserved justice and that is why the court ruled in favor of Chalfant.