DAMAGES - possible trial due to complaint I filed with NYSDHR

[cbg]

It may or may not be "reasonable" depending on the job. I agree completely.

However, this OP has indicated more than once that he didn't even ASK. At best, he appears to have assumed that all he had to do was make sure the employer knew he was disabled and they were responsible for everything else. Which is not even close to true in this instance.

It was still up to him to ask. (And the ADA does NOT say that he has to get the accommodation he wants or even the one the doctor recommends.)

I know you're not saying otherwise, Ron. Just taking another opportunity to make the point. Since it doesn't appear that he gets it.

 

[commentator]

I repeat, they've offered you something to get rid of you. You can counter offer, of course, but I'd not be too willing to chase this into court, regardless of what you've seen at the movies. Worker's comp cases are paid by the employer's WC carrier, who then raises their insurance premium rates to accommodate the greater expense from your and other claims. Suits against companies for violation of the ADA would be paid for by the company.

 

[HC1432]

I know that I am a couple of weeks late on reading this thread and it is not proper etiquette to reply in that case but I can't help but mention that this OP appears to be a shining example of the types of people that come to this site. Human nature can be so interesting some times. The OP comes to the site seeking "advice" (confirmation of his opinion really) from experts in this area but when presented with information contrary to what he initially thought (hoped actually) he disagrees and even goes so far as to attempt to educate those repliers. His inability to recognize the value of the information being provided by those with much more experience with these matters may result in a negative outcome for himself. In reality it is sad that this is often the case, but also admittedly (guiltily) entertaining. I hope he took the initial offer and let it go.

P.S.

OP - I am not sure what Flying Ron needs to say differently to get you to understand that when he mentions the Bowers case, he is talking about a real life case, not the events that took place in the movie Philadelphia. The case that occurred in the movie was FICTIONAL (that means NOT REAL, or if you need it in more elementary terms, MAKE BELIEVE). The Bowers case was different and had a different outcome. More importantly, both are not even close to being similar to your situation so it is not relevant.