Brian Chancey v. BASF Corporation

Did the Court abuse its discretion in dismissing the amended complaint for disability discrimination and retaliation? Does an employer violate the ADA’s prohibition on discriminatory qualification standards when it imposes daily non-job-related treatment protocols on an employee because it regards the employee as a direct threat without evidence? Does an employer violate the ADA’s prohibition on discrimination when it establishes new exclusionary qualification standards which impose non-job-related treatments and tests? Did the Court abuse its discretion by failing to consider the Congressional intent and standard of review for ADA pleadings by failing to review defendant’s response to determine if it expressed any viable ADA defense? Is a covered employer required by the ADA to show that the new “COVTD policy” qualification standards for employment are job-related for the position in question and consistent with “business necessity”? Is a covered employer required, by the conditions set forth in the statute, to show that an employee individually and objectively poses a “direct threat” of the specific threat the new qualification standards are designed to mitigate? Did the Court abuse its discretion by refusing to properly analyze whether certain “COVTD policy” medical treatments and tests qualify as non-job-related qualification standards? -l-