Paul Cronan Case

16 Pages 4093 Words

ement was justly informed. However, it is obvious that the information spread much further than the defined legal parameters. Just as it was the responsibility of O’Brian to report the condition to management, it was management’s responsible to treat it with the utmost respect and ensure that it did not escape the proper channels.

Conclusion:

Under the terms of the ADA, Cronan’s rights were violated. O’Brian had the legal right to inform management about Cronan’s aliment due to the fact that the disease would cause him to be absent from work. However, O’Brian did not have the right to inform those individuals who were not in the proper management positions. By doing so, not only did he impede upon Cronan’s rights, but he helped to facilitate an uncomfortable and hostile work environment.

III. LEGAL ANALYSIS – ISSUE THREE

Did NET violate the ADA by discriminating against Cronan because of his AID-Related disability?

Rule:

Employment discrimination is prohibited against "qualified individuals with disab...