The California Board of Governors has appointed Wilke Fleury associate Samson R. Elsbernd to the State Bar’s California Young Lawyers Association (CYLA). CYLA advises the Board of the interests of California young lawyers, develops strategies for increasing young lawyer involvement and participation in the State Bar, and facilitates the development of programs and services that would assist young lawyers in their professional and leadership advancement and programs that benefit the public.

CYLA members serve as ambassadors of the State Bar to the young lawyer organizations within the state. A California young lawyer is defined as a member in good standing of the State Bar of California who is in his or her first five years of practice in place California or who is age 36 or under. Mr. Elsbernd’s appointment will begin at the close of the 2010 State Bar Annual Meeting on September 26, 2010.

Wilke Fleury obtains judgment in Bankruptcy Court trial. Megan Lewis and Jason Cinq-Mars recently obtained a $204,000 judgment following a trial in the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California.  Ms. Lewis and Mr. Cinq-Mars represented a client that had emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings and sued to recover monies the client had paid to purchase invalid medical claims. Ms. Lewis and Mr. Cinq-Mars regularly represent clients in all aspects of Chapter 7 and 11 bankruptcy proceedings.

California employers that receive federal funding may now be subject to disability discrimination claims from independent contractors under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. In a surprising decision, the Ninth Circuit recently held that section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act should be broadly construed to protect all individuals denied participation from federally-funded programs, including independent contractors.

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973
The Rehabilitation Act was the first major federal statute designed to protect disabled individuals in this country. Section 504 of the Act creates a private right of action for individuals subjected to discrimination by any federally-funded program or activity. Specifically, the Act provides that an individual who is otherwise qualified cannot be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination under any federally-funded program or activity solely because of his or her disability. A federally-funded program for purposes of the Act include businesses that receive any amount of federal funding. Further, section 504(d) provides that the standards used to determine a violation of the Act in an employment discrimination case are the same standards applied under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).

Recently, various courts have been attempting to resolve the issue of whether section 504 covers only employees where the claim arises in the workplace or whether it also covers non-employees, such as independent contractors. In a recent Ninth Circuit case, Fleming v. Yuma Regional Medical Center, the court held that section 504 should be interpreted to cover independent contractors, which would allow them to bring discrimination claims under the Act.

Fleming v. Yuma Regional Medical Center
In Fleming v. Yuma Regional Medical Center, Dr. Lester Fleming applied for a position with the Yuma Regional Medical Center as an anesthesiologist. Upon learning that Dr. Fleming suffered from sickle cell anemia, Yuma informed him that it would not be able to accommodate his operating room and call schedules. Dr. Fleming declined to accept this condition, which effectively cancelled the contract. He then brought suit against Yuma for employment discrimination in violation of section 504 of the Act.

Yuma asked the Court to dismiss Dr. Fleming’s case, arguing that he was not an employee, but was instead an independent contractor who could not bring a claim a for discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act. The lower court agreed and granted Yuma’s motion, finding that Dr. Fleming was an independent contractor and that independent contractors are not protected by the Rehabilitation Act. Dr. Fleming appealed.

The Ninth Circuit agreed with Dr. Fleming, finding that the Rehabilitation Act (unlike the ADA) is not limited to employees but also applies to independent contractors and the entities that hire them. The Court reasoned that the Act covers any “otherwise qualified individual” denied participation in, benefits of, or subjected to discrimination from any program that receives federal funds. The Act defines “program or activity” broadly to include all operations of covered entities, not only those pertaining to employment. Based on the language of the Act, the Court concluded that it is broad enough to cover employees and independent contractors alike.

What this means for you:
It has long been understood that only employees may bring claims for disability discrimination. This case radically changes that notion. If you hire independent contractors and you receive any federal funding, you must now be aware of your obligation to reasonably accommodate a contractor who is disabled.