concluding that such disparity in disability coverage constitutes unlawful discrimination prohibited by Title I because it imposes a benefits limitation that is contingent on the kind of disability the former employee has
How later courts described this case
- concluding that such disparity in disability coverage constitutes unlawful discrimination prohibited by Title I because it imposes a benefits limitation that is contingent on the kind of disability the former employee has
- explaining that the majority in Olmstead “substantially imported] the definition of Title I into Title II”
- finding that ADA prohibits a distinction in benefit payments between mental and physical disabilities
- "[W]e conclude that in the context of the ADA the subterfuge exception to the safe harbor provision requires that a plaintiff show that the employer specifically intended to discriminate based on disability ....”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ORDER ON REHEARING
Dec. 19, 2001.
BY THE COURT:
A member of this court in active service having requested a poll on the suggestion of rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in this court in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc,
IT IS ORDERED that the above cause shall be reheard by this court en banc. The previous panel’s opinion is hereby vacated.