CBG and Beth3 please comment on this thread

[rmet4nzkx]

What is the name of your state? TN
This thread takes place in TN and involves a young man working in a store claiming mental disability that prevents him from working no matter the accommodation, Eventually he was terminated for falsifying his employment application, but files pro se lawsuit in federal court claiming his activities were protected under ADA. He was given 3 accommodations, but wanted unsupervised work, lol. This is long, he refuses to get an attorney.
https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?p=838093#post838093

 

[BelizeBreeze]

What is the name of your state? TN
This thread takes place in TN and involves a young man working in a store claiming mental disability that prevents him from working no matter the accommodation, Eventually he was terminated for falsifying his employment application, but files pro se lawsuit in federal court claiming his activities were protected under ADA. He was given 3 accommodations, but wanted unsupervised work, lol. This is long, he refuses to get an attorney.
https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?p=838093#post838093

I'm going to butt in between the girls (oh if only I could ) and tell you that my opinion is that the case will never see the inside of a Federal courtroom for lack of a claim for which to receive compensation.

The 'evidence' won't make it in and then the only thing left will be the ADA claim. Which is iffy at best.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

I'm going to butt in between the girls (oh if only I could ) and tell you that my opinion is that the case will never see the inside of a Federal courtroom for lack of a claim for which to receive compensation.

The 'evidence' won't make it in and then the only thing left will be the ADA claim. Which is iffy at best.

I didn't meant to leave you out by any means and feel free to comment on it as well. You mirror my sentiments as well, the only evidence exists in Josh's mind, he has no case and the only way he is going to salvage an ADA case is to consult a civil rights attorney to see if somewhere in all his "evidence" there is some valid ADA issue, which Josh, cannot, because of his mental disability resognize. If he had not falsified about his employment history and discussed it with fellow workers, excluding a defense of short term memory loss, and made references to a bomb threat on the internet, he might have actually had a case.

 

[cbg]

Wow, you weren't kidding when you said it was long.

I don't have time to read it right now, but I'll make a point of checking it out later this morning.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Wow, you weren't kidding when you said it was long.

I don't have time to read it right now, but I'll make a point of checking it out later this morning.

Fortify yourself

 

[cbg]

Ms. Cupcake, you've read ahead, so I'm going to ask a question.

I got well into the fourth page. Are we going to get to the point, or even some facts, any time soon? I'm getting pretty bored with everyone sniping at Megan, and Megan sniping back. So far all I know is that Josh was fired for falsification of his application, and he thinks it's retaliation for requesting an ADA accomodation, but other than your explanation above, I have no clue what actually took place.

 

[Katy W.]

To be protected by the ADA you must be a "qualified individual with a disability."

If this person truly could not work no matter how accommodating the employer is, then he is not qualified. A qualified person has to be able to do the job "with or without accommodations." If no accommodation exists that permit this young man to do his job, he is't qualified and does not meet the criteria for ADA protection.

 

[cbg]

Absolutely correct, Katy. But Ms. Cupcake (rmet to you) knows this perfectly well too, so if she wants Beth and me to look at it I suspect it's not quite that simple in this case. I'm just having to take this thread in small stages cuz there's so much extraneous material that keeps inserting itself.

 

[Katy W.]

The last time I read posts from the OP there was also a question as to whether or not he was disabled within the ADA definition, and I seem to remember that sort of got swept under the rug, as the secret recording was a lot more exciting to talk about...

 

[cbg]

Sorry, Katy, I didn't realize at the time I posted above that you'd participated in the thread too.

I've gone through a few more pages (I can only take so much at a time) and so far I have to agree with you both. As of where I am in the thread right now, I don't see much of a case because (a) if he is unable to do the job with or without an accomodation the employer is not required to keep him on the job and (b) the ADA does not protect him from for-cause terminations.

I'll see if I can wade through a little more later on.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

CBG,
I'm sorry to have dumped that on you and had hoped that you or Beth3 would have seen it sooner but since it was not on the employment forum I guess you didn't see it and it's title didn't draw attention to it's focus, if you can say it has a focus, lol
I tried early on to give him direction to appropriate sources of assistance, but he is already too involved in the process and encouraged by Megan to continue down this path leading nowhere. He will not listen to reason or get an attorney. He cannot comprehend that ADA doesn't protect him from terminaiton for cause and that they did try repeatedly to accommodate him and he could and or would not attempt to work. Somewhere he got the wrong impression re the role of ADA in employment. I thought maybe he might listen to you. Hope you recover from this, it will be one for the books! The employer is Wal-Mart so I don't think he had union representation.
Ms. Cupcake

 

[cbg]

I'll keep wading through it and, assuming the thread's still open at the time, see what I can do. I don't often read the Civil Litigation forum since my knowledge of the overall subject is limited to what I see on TV.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

THANKS! Don't be surprized if Josh posts his amended complaint sometime today. Defendent moved to strike the entire complaint, essentially he is responding with another 50 pages saying the same thing, besides not understanding that ADA doesn't protect him from termination for cause, he also saw the accommodations as being retaliation being moved from the produce department to cashier position, claiming chronic fatigue, he wanted a position where he could talk with other employee's when ever he wanted rather than on breaks and not to be supervised, which are not reasonable accommodations under ADA. He never answers how his Federal EEOC complaint was resolved and he possibly made eeoc complaint at Wal-Mart so it is not clear if any EEOC complaints were made or if to the proper entity and or if the ADA accommodations were requested appropriately within the Wal-Mart org. Wal-Mart is also aware that he secretly recorded conversations which he contends support his case, but are not likely to be allowed into evidence.

 

[cbg]

Do you happen to know what TN's recording laws are? I know where I could look for the information, but we've had almost four feet of snow dropped on us since Saturday night, no exaggeration, and I'm feeling lazy after trying to dig my car out.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

TN is a one party state, however there is an expectation for privacy in some situations, so it is unlikely the recording would be accepted into evidence without special exceptions, there are references to this issue within the thread. He was confusing law enforcement's right to record while investigating criminal activities to his secret taping of conversations. Just because he may be able to record, doesn't mean he can get it accepted into evidence.

His reason for the recording was to prove that they knew he had falsified his employment application and let him work anyway, he doesn't say how long they knew and then retaliated when he asked for ADA accommodations. Whereas, apparently, he had been discussing the fact that he had falsified his application, apparnetly to hide that he had been terminated for cause, off the application and other provocative subjects with employees who in turn complained to management. After the recorded counseling session with his supervisor, the supervisor, confirmed the facts, that he had falsified/omitted on his application and terminated him for cause. It is further significant that he was terminated at the other employment for failure to perform, aparently not qualified to perform work in either employment and then played the ADA card.