Henschel V. Clare County Road Commission Case Study

Case Studies 4

Henschel v. Clare County Road Commission

1. Legal issue and Courts Decision

In the case of Henschel v. Clare County Road commission; Wayne Henschel claims that the county road commission discriminated against him. He claims that they violated the Americans with Disabilities act, firing him for a disability from a motor vehicle accident that happened 2 years after he started working for the Road Commission. The court granted the Clare County Road Commission judgement, because Henschel could not perform the essential functions for the position. However, the courts reverse when the essential functions of the position come into question.

2. Requesting Reinstatement

In 2007 Wayne Henschel accepted a position as an excavator operator.

The factors they take into account are as follows: employer judgement, a job description that is made before advertising for employees, consequences of not requiring the performance of functions be said employee, terms of a collective bargaining agreement, past employee’s experience of job functions, and current work experience of the employee holding the position. In reviewing the job descriptions, the court revealed that the job function, of transporting the excavator, was already assigned to the truck driver and that none of the job postings in 2007 established transporting the machine as an essential function. Next, the court looks at the amount of time Henschel spent driving the machine to sites. We can see that in the testimony Henschel drives it around 70 percent of the time, but that does not attest to how much it is actually driving, because Henschel stated that 90 percent of the time, the machine sits at a site. The reversed the decision, because in looking at the functions of the excavator operator, transportation of the machine was more of a minimal

Metropolitan Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson County

1. Legal issue and Courts Decision

In the case of Petty v. Metropolitan Gov’t of Nashville and Davidson County, there is claim that the County governments violate a reservist’s right to reemployment under the Uniformed Service Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). Also in question was the truth of an employee’s reasons for discharge from the service. In this case the courts enter a judgment ruling in favor of Petty under the reemployment claims. As for the discrimination claim, the court is to proceed with finding the resultant damages.

2. Violating the USERRA

The Metro Government offered reemployment to Petty, but did not reinstate him to his former role as patrol sergeant, or a substantially equivalent position. When rehired, Petty was given a desk position where he ended up answering phones and filing reports. Petty also claims that the Metro Government delayed rehiring him by “subjecting him to the department’s return-to-work process.” (Walsh, p. 402, 2014) Lastly the Metro restricted Petty from accepting off duty positions during his