New Jersey Jury Instruction - 1.5.1 Americans With Disabilities Act 42 USC Sect. 12101 - 12117 Disparate Treatment Claim

• Category: Federal - Jury Instructions - Adverse Employment Action
• State: Multi-State
• Control #: US-11CF-1-5-1
• Format: Word; Rich Text

Description

This form contains sample jury instructions, to be used across the United States. These questions are to be used only as a model, and should be altered to more perfectly fit your own cause of action needs.

New Jersey Jury Instruction — 1.5.1 Americans With Disabilities Act 42 USC Sect. 12101 – 12117 Disparate Treatment Claim: A Comprehensive Overview Keywords: New Jersey Jury Instruction, American With Disabilities Act, Disparate Treatment Claim, 42 USC Sect. 12101 – 12117 Introduction: The New Jersey Jury Instruction 1.5.1 provides clarification and guidance for jurors presiding over cases involving Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Disparate Treatment Claims. This instruction outlines the legal foundation, relevant statutes, and the burden of proof required for plaintiffs to establish a claim of disparate treatment under the ADA. Types of Claims under the ADA Disparate Treatment: 1. Disparate Treatment Claim: The disparate treatment claim, as per the New Jersey Jury Instruction 1.5.1, alleges that an employer has intentionally discriminated against an individual with a disability, treating them less favorably compared to employees without disabilities, solely based on their disability. This claim is primarily focused on proving intentional discrimination based on the individual's disability and the negative impact it had on their employment. 2. Failure to Accommodate Claim: While not explicitly covered under the New Jersey Jury Instruction 1.5.1, a Failure to Accommodate Claim is closely related to disparate treatment claims. This claim asserts that an employer failed to provide reasonable accommodations or make necessary modifications in policies, practices, or facilities to allow an individual with a disability to perform their job duties. Failure to accommodate can be seen as a form of discriminatory treatment against individuals with disabilities. Understanding the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA): The ADA is a federal law enacted in 1990 to prohibit discrimination against individuals with disabilities in various aspects of life, including employment. It provides protections and ensures equal opportunities for individuals with disabilities, aiming to eradicate barriers and create inclusive environments. Key Elements under the New Jersey Jury Instruction 1.5.1: To establish a Disparate Treatment Claim under the ADA, the jury needs to consider the following key elements: 1. Proof of Disability: The plaintiff must demonstrate that they have a disability as defined by the ADA. ADA defines a disability as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment. 2. Proof of Disparate Treatment: The plaintiff must show that they were treated less favorably compared to similarly situated individuals without disabilities. This differential treatment must be directly attributed to their disability. 3. Proof of Intentional Discrimination: The plaintiff must provide evidence to show that the employer acted with discriminatory intent when making adverse employment decisions based on their disability. Intent can be established through direct or circumstantial evidence. 4. Proof of Causal Link: The plaintiff needs to prove that their disability was a substantial or motivating factor in the employer's discriminatory actions, leading to adverse employment consequences. It must be shown that the employer's discriminatory treatment had a significant impact on the terms, conditions, or privileges of their employment. Conclusion: The New Jersey Jury Instruction 1.5.1 provides a detailed framework for jurors to evaluate disparate treatment claims under the Americans With Disabilities Act. By considering the plaintiff's disability, differential treatment, discriminatory intent, and the causal link between the disability and adverse employment consequences, jurors can make informed and fair decisions while upholding the spirit of the ADA.