In a case of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held recently that a provision in the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) that makes it unlawful “to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any individual” who is exercising his or her rights under the law does not give rise to claims against a third party.
The ADA’s so-called interference provision is distinguishable from the ADA’s anti-retaliation provision, which as is the case with most other anti-discrimination laws prohibits retaliation against an individual for opposing any act made unlawful by the ADA or making a charge, testifying, or otherwise participating in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing related to the Act. Among other major anti-discrimination laws, however, only the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) contain similar “interference” provisions.
Although 2016 Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) addresses the ADA interference provision at length, describing it as broader than the law’s anti-retaliation provision, there is relatively little case law on the ADA’s interference provision.
Members of the Center for Workplace Compliance (CWC) can read more here.