Solve the 3 mini-cases attached by answering the followingquestions for each case: 1. What issue must the

Fantastic news! We've Found the answer you've been seeking!

Question:

Solve the 3 mini-cases attached by answering the followingquestions for each case:

1. What issue must the court decide in this case?

2. If you were a memberof the jury, how would you vote? Did theemployerdiscriminateunlawfully? Why or why not?

Case 1

John Hitman was fired when he was caught carrying a gun into work. He was hospitalized following the incident and was diagnosed with a mental disorder. His attorney informed the company of his mental status and asked that they delay any decision about his employment status.The company fired John for his clear violation of company rules.

Case 2

Whitaker worked as a corrections officer for the Wisconsin Department of Health Services, eventually transitioning into other positions due to a back injury. Her most recent position was that of an economic support specialist in the Department's Income Maintenance Program. In this role, Whitaker's job duties included processing applications for benefits, answering phone calls, and general case management, all requiring regular attendance. Whitaker exhausted her available FMLA leave for her medical condition as well as a 30-day unpaid leave to care for her father and due to her own personal illness. Whitaker was informed by the Department that if she failed to return to work upon the conclusion of the 30-day leave, the termination process would begin. Whitaker did not return to work on her expected date but did submit notes from her doctor requesting additional time off for a medical leave. The notes did not provide any detail on her condition, course of treatment, or estimated recovery. Whitaker continued to assert she was unable to return to work and the Department terminated her employment. Whitaker sued, claiming the Department should have considered her request for an accommodation of unpaid leave rather than terminate her.

Case 3

A medical equipment service technician, was diagnosed with stage III renal carcinoma in November 2007, he took short-term disability leave for surgery and recovery, and returned to work on January 2, 2008, without restrictions. He did not take any significant time off after his return. In January 2009, in response to a new requirement that all service technicians work overtime (65 to 70 hours per week) and work a night shift once a week, the plaintiff sought accommodation, providing a doctor's note stating that he could "not work more than 8 hours/day, 5 days/week" The employer refused to provide the requested accommodation and terminated the technician claiming that he did not have a substantially limiting impairment because at the time in question his cancer was in remission and he had been working for a year without restrictions.