"But for" vs. "Sole Cause"

[feddey26]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? MN /ND

To prove disability discrimination do only certain states have "but for" the disability the termination would have happened vs the disability is the sole cause of the termination. So far I have only found that Ohio has the "but for" but perhaps more do even all?? If the disability is protected under the ADA Federal Laws are do all states treat it the same or can each state make there own interpretations- the "but for or sole cause or interpretation of the case? I live in MN but work in ND.

 

[BigMouthWino]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? MN /ND

To prove disability discrimination do only certain states have "but for" the disability the termination would have happened vs the disability is the sole cause of the termination. So far I have only found that Ohio has the "but for" but perhaps more do even all?? If the disability is protected under the ADA Federal Laws are do all states treat it the same or can each state make there own interpretations- the "but for or sole cause or interpretation of the case? I live in MN but work in ND.

What you are stating are two ways of wording basically the same concept: In order to be in violation of the law the discrimination has to be the "reason" for the termination and that there were no other factors that could be ascribed to the reason you were terminated.

 

[feddey26]

Thank you. I know they are relatively the same. However the reason I asked is I came across this article that makes it sound like they are different.

http://www.employerlawreport.com/2012/05/articles/eeo/sixth-circuit-applies-but-for-test-in-disability-discrimination-case/#axzz29wu1r0M5

I was just wondering if each state is free to interpret their own way or if they must follow federal laws and guidelines?
Thanks!

 

[BigMouthWino]

I was just wondering if each state is free to interpret their own way or if they must follow federal laws and guidelines?
Thanks!

States can draft their laws with whatever verbiage they choose unless doing so would cause a substantial conflict with the Federal Law. And even then they sometimes go their own way in spite of what federal law says (see medical marijuana).