How Much Protection Does the Americans with Disabilities Act afford individuals with Sleep Disorders? I have some pretty complicated sleep apnea (diagnosed, service connected) that is in the process of being treated. Unfortunately, the type of device I require is on a significant back-order and there's really no telling when it's going to arrive. I've informed my employer, and I have a decent working relationship with my first-line regarding flexible arrival times, but other individuals within the organization have started to cause a stink, resulting in a counseling. Said counseling threatened termination should I be unable to arrive &quot;on time&quot;. Note that I do not work in an environment where sleep issues can cause any sort of danger to myself or others.
There is no clear answer, though multiple sources feel that the answer is clearly &quot;yes&quot; and &quot;no&quot;, and there is a reasonable probability that given the circumstances described, a court ruling would be favorable to plaintiff. This informal letter from the EEOC tends to conclude that sleep apnea is not a disability in the legal sense, but this letter (2003) was rescinded – still, it reveals one line of thinking and relevant case law. In Michaels v. McPherson Kansas, the appellate court refers to and upholds a lower court ruling that plaintiff suffered employment discrimination under the ADA (among other things). The appeal does not discuss the core issue in ADA law, whether the condition significantly limits a person's life, which strongly suggests that defendant accepted the conclusion that sleep apena can be a disability. On the other hand, in Taylor v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas, a discrimination case involving sleep apnea was dismissed – but crucial to the dismissal was that he was successfully treated (also relevant was the lack of notice given the the employer). Finally, in Keyes v. Catholic Charities, federal court found that plaintiff's condition was not a disability under the meaning of the term in ADA. This does not mean that sleep apnea is &quot;not a disability under the law&quot;, it means that &quot;defendant is not disabled under the law&quot;, that is, the conclusion is based on the particulars of the individual condition, which is why the answer is &quot;maybe yes, maybe no&quot;. There is a two-prong inquiry into the condition. First is a determination whether the person is “substantially limited in any major life activity other than working, such as walking, seeing, or hearing”, compared to the general population. If not, then an inquiry into work-related substantial limitations. A six month delay in seeking treatment undermined Keyes' argument that his condition was a substantial limitation, furthermore he had a CPAP machine, so essentially his condition was fixed – circumstances not application to the case you describe. See also Peter v. Lincoln Technical Institute, Inc., 255 F. Supp. 2d 417 for various citations and the overall conclusion that no court in this circuit appears to have decided whether sleep apnea is, on its own, enough to qualify as a disability, probably because &quot;a particular diagnosis, no matter how severe, ..., standing alone, is not sufficient to establish `disability'&quot;
It does not really matter exactly how the employer chooses to count working hours. However, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires, among other things, that the employee is at least paid the official minimum wage for each hour worked, and gets overtime pay for >40 hours per week. The Act also defines what counts as "hour worked" for these purposes. The Fact Sheet # 79D from the U.S. Department of Labor gives more details about what counts as "hours worked" for domestic services under the FLSA. The general rule is that all time during the shift counts, whether the employee is busy or not: Generally, when an employee is “on duty” (that is they must be in the home and prepared to provide services when required), they are working. The only exception is that time spent sleeping may be deducted under certain circumstances: In some circumstances, an employer may exclude up to eight hours an employee spends sleeping at the worksite from the time for which an employee must be paid. The rules are different, depending on whether the employee permanently resides at the place of work ("Live-in employee), has shifts of >=24 hours or shifts of &lt;24 hours. In your case the shift is >=24 hours, so the rule is (see page three of the document): Up to eight hours of sleep time may be excluded from hours worked, provided that: sleeping facilities are available the employee can usually sleep at least five hours without disturbance the employee agrees to exclude sleep time Even then, interruptions of sleep for work must be paid, and if the employee get &lt;5 hours sleep during a given shift, no exclusion is possible. So in summary: For calculating hourly wage and overtime pay, the employer must count at least 16 hours for each 24 hour shift, and more if the employee cannot sleep for eight hours during the shift. It probably does not matter that the employer calls it "12 hours worked", but your mother is entitled to at least "minium wage x 16" for each shift worked, and is entitled to overtime pay (at least 1.5 times minimum wage) if she works more than two shifts per week. If the shift is ever reduced to less than 24 hours, even sleep time may not be excluded.
The line they'll rely on for GDPR compliance is the first part of that sentence - "If you agree to this during the order process", which suggests that there will be a separate request to opt in to marketing communications at some other time in the process. Check any order documents. There's likely to be a tick box or similar on at least one. If that implies opting out rather than opting in there may be grounds to argue with that under GDPR, but there's nothing in the quoted text that suggests a problem.
In the UK this is governed by the Equality Act 2010, which prohibits discrimination against disabled persons. Official guidance as to what counts as &quot;disability&quot; can be found here, but the basic definition in the law (as paraphrased here) is &quot;substantial&quot; and &quot;long term&quot; difficulty in carrying out every-day tasks. ‘substantial’ is more than minor or trivial, eg it takes much longer than it usually would to complete a daily task like getting dressed ‘long-term’ means 12 months or more, eg a breathing condition that develops as a result of a lung infection. Allergies are long-term, so the question is whether a food allergy presents substantial difficulty in carrying out every-day tasks. The kind of every-day tasks that the guidance considers are things like getting dressed, preparing a meal, meeting work deadlines, typing or writing. The guidance does not specifically mention allergies. However the mere existence of an allergy would not create substantial difficulty in carrying out this kind of every-day task. So it would not be considered a disability.
Unless your contract, whether individual or collective, has a clause requiring this compensation you are out of luck. Sometimes one of the “benefits” for a company’s move is to leave behind workers who are not 100% committed to the company in that they would not move or commute a long way to keep their job. 30 miles isn’t very unusual where I live. In the U.S. most employment is on an "at will" basis. That means you can quit anytime you like without notice and you can be fired at any time for almost any reason or no reason, as long as the reason is not one of the protected reasons.
It is discrimination. However, it is legal, and generally not grounds for a lawsuit. Discrimination is legal, except when it is based upon certain specific categories, such as race, sex, and religion. For example, it is perfectly legal to discriminate for a position based on the possession of education degrees, skill certification or availability to work specific hours or days of the week. Immigration status (and specifically, needing a H1B sponsor in the future) is not a protected category, and as such it is legal to discriminate against this as a factor. Additionally, there are several downsides for hiring a H1B candidate, and foremost of which is sponsoring someone for an H1B visa is not a sure thing, since the H1B system is run as a lottery; as such, you may not receive a visa or extension, and thus be ineligible to legally work.
Here's a bit of Georgia law that is relevant. By law, your apartment shall have installed an approved battery operated smoke detector which shall be maintained in good working order unless any such building is otherwise required to have a smoke detector system pursuant to Code Section 25-2-13. Also, &quot;Detectors shall be listed and meet the installation requirements of NFPA 72&quot;. Furthermore, Any occupant who fails to maintain a smoke detector in a dwelling, dwelling unit, or other facility, other than a nursing home, listed in subsection (a) of this Code section in good working order as required in this Code section shall be subject to a maximum fine of $25.00, provided that a warning shall be issued for a first violation. (note that there is a burden on the occupant, not just the landlord). However, Failure to maintain a smoke detector in good working order in a dwelling, dwelling unit, or other facility listed in subsection (a) of this Code section in violation of this Code section shall not be considered evidence of negligence, shall not be considered by the court on any question of liability of any person, corporation, or insurer, shall not be any basis for cancellation of coverage or increase in insurance rates, and shall not diminish any recovery for damages arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or occupancy of such dwelling, dwelling unit, or other facility listed in subsection (a) of this Code section. Whether or not a photoelectric smoke detector is NFPA-compliant is not a legal question, but you could read NFPA's comparison of ionizing and photoelectric detectors here. If we assume (as is reasonable to do) that you install an approved device, then there is no code violation by picking your own device, does not change liability, and can have no effect on insurance rate / cancellation. OTOH, it is conceivable that the lease is written to prohibit any monkeying around with the smoke detector.
Here's what I had to do : After going through this harrowing phase, I thought I will post an update in case some one is in such a situation. The Northern Territory's Personal Violence Restraining Order act has a clause (section 21) which basically says if the applicant believes a third party knows the defendant's name then the applicant can request the court to order the third party(power, water, electoral roll, etc) to provide the name if the applicant has already made reasonable efforts in finding out the persons name and hasn't been able to. The third parties will only oblige to a court order. I am almost certain every state/territories' act (in Australia) will have such a clause. It was a challenge to get the court registry to accept the application as the front counter staff/supervisor/supervisor's supervisor were all unaware of this provision (to make an application for a PVRO but get the judge to first order the third party). I had to carry with me the act with the highlighted portion for them to read, analyse and consult with other court staff to even take my application in. At least in the NT there are community legal help services available for no fee and I highly recommend them.