In Ogborn v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 881, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that while major depression can constitute a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, isolated bouts of depression do not. Furthermore, the court held that an employee's firing after taking medical leave for depression does not violate the Family and Medical Leave Act, where evidence shows that the employee would have been fired for poor performance even if he (...) had not taken the leave.Alleging that he was fired in violation of the ADA and the FMLA, Jerry Ogborn sued his former employer, Local 881 of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, as well as the union's vice president. Beginning in 1980, Ogborn worked as a business agent for the union, which represents members employed primarily in the retail grocery industry. Ogborn's duties consisted of visiting retail grocery stores employing workers represented by the union, meeting with members about working conditions, and filing and processing members’ grievances. (shrink)

In Ogborn v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 881, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that while major depression can constitute a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, isolated bouts of depression do not. Furthermore, the court held that an employee's firing after taking medical leave for depression does not violate the Family and Medical Leave Act, where evidence shows that the employee would have been fired for poor performance even if he (...) had not taken the leave.Alleging that he was fired in violation of the ADA and the FMLA, Jerry Ogborn sued his former employer, Local 881 of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, as well as the union's vice president. Beginning in 1980, Ogborn worked as a business agent for the union, which represents members employed primarily in the retail grocery industry. Ogborn's duties consisted of visiting retail grocery stores employing workers represented by the union, meeting with members about working conditions, and filing and processing members’ grievances. (shrink)

On June 16, 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that forced administration of antipsychotic drugs to a defendant facing serious criminal charges is appropriate in order to render that defendant competent to stand trial, but only in limited circumstances. The treatment must be medically appropriate, substantially unlikely to have side effects that may undermine the fairness of the trial, and necessary to significantly further important government interests, after taking account of less-intrusive alternatives.Charles Sell, a former dentist, had a long history of (...) mental illness. He had been hospitalized twice, in 1982 and 1984, after expressing paranoid ideas to law enforcement officials. In May 1997, Sell was charged with fifty-six counts of mail fraud, six counts of Medicaid fraud, and one count of money laundering. He was released on bail after a magistrate determined that he was currently competent to stand trial. (shrink)

On June 16, 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that forced administration of antipsychotic drugs to a defendant facing serious criminal charges is appropriate in order to render that defendant competent to stand trial, but only in limited circumstances. The treatment must be medically appropriate, substantially unlikely to have side effects that may undermine the fairness of the trial, and necessary to significantly further important government interests, after taking account of less-intrusive alternatives.Charles Sell, a former dentist, had a long history of (...) mental illness. He had been hospitalized twice, in 1982 and 1984, after expressing paranoid ideas to law enforcement officials. In May 1997, Sell was charged with fifty-six counts of mail fraud, six counts of Medicaid fraud, and one count of money laundering. He was released on bail after a magistrate determined that he was currently competent to stand trial. (shrink)