On March 20, 2013, Judge William J. Hayes, Jr. of The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division issued an opinion about Facebook and discovery. See Potts v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 2013 U.S. LEXIS 38795 (M.D. Tenn. March 20, 2013) Facebook discovery is on the cutting edge of the law right now because the courts are trying to keep up with the changing technologies and people’s habits.

In Keith v. County of Oakland, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 595 (6th Cir. January 10, 2013), the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found that the Americans with Disabilities Act protected a deaf individual who had applied for a job as a lifeguard at a wave pool in Oakland County.  The district court had originally dismissed the case by granting the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.  It is actually quite interesting to look at the facts as laid out by the District Court and its conclusions along side those of the Six Circuit and wonder how the District Court concluded there was no factual question.  See Nicholas v. Oakland County, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98498 (E.D. Mich. September 1, 2011) (J. Zatkoff) 

An employee who is disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act can seek unpaid leave as a reasonable accommodation. A Tennessee District Court (Tennessee, along with Michigan, are part of the Sixth Circuit) granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The Defendant’s termination notice provided that Plaintiff was being terminated because she could not longer do the required tasks of her job and her long-term disability. 

In my opinion, courts are having difficulty determining what to do with statements made that appear to be agist. In this case, the statements appear to show agism, but were not made at the time of discharge. Some cases seem to give more or less weight to specific statements. The Courts evaluates age discrimination cases on a case by case basis — in this case, they found sufficient evidence to allow it to go to the jury. 

Brooks v. Davey Tree Expert Co., (Dk. No. 11-5102) (6th Cir. 2012) (Not recommended for full-text publication, decided April 17, 2012)