Federal Judiciary

Turning to her claim itself, the Court notes, while ?[i]t is unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, harass or interfere with any individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, or because that individual aided or encouraged any other individual in the exercise of, any right granted or protected by this part,? 29 C.F.R. § 1630.12(b), the Ninth Circuit, has never recognized the Act or the ADA as giving rise to a harassment claim, and the Circuits are split on the issue. See Brown v. City of Tucson, 336 F.3d 1181, 1188-93 (9th Cir.2003) (distinguishing anti-interference claim from hostile work environment claim); Mannie v. Potter, 394 F.3d 977, 982 (7th Cir.2005) (Seventh Circuit has never decided the issue under the Act or ADA); Quiles-Quiles v. Henderson, 439 F.3d 1, 5 n. 1 (1st Cir.2006) (assuming the Act would give rise to one for analysis, but not so holding); Jeseritz v. Potter, 282 F.3d 542, 547 (8th Cir.2002) (same); Walton v. Mental Health Ass'n, 168 F.3d 661, 666-67 n. 2 (3d Cir.1999) (same); Soledad v. Dep't of Treasury, 304 F.3d 500, 506 (5th Cir.2002) (recognizing harassment theory under Act and ADA); Fox v. Gen. Motors Corp., 247 F.3d 169, 176 (4th Cir.2001) (same for ADA); Flowers v. S. Regional Physician Servs. Inc., 247 F.3d 229, 232-33 (5th Cir.2001) (same).

Full post as published by Split Circuits on June 16, 2008 (boomark / email).