Mixing
How can a subcontractor or temporary agency comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
If a subcontractor or temporary agency is the legal employer of an individual, how can they comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirement to provide reasonable accommodations to persons with physical disabilities, if their employees do not physically work at their legal address?
Is there a general principle that guides employees, agencies, and the end-client in these situations? If there is a general theory - is there a list of specific rules that can be referred to?
united-states contractors contracting disability
asked May 21 '15 at 13:54
Andyz Smith
1599
suggest improvements |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
If a subcontractor or temporary agency is the legal employer of an individual, how can they comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirement to provide reasonable accommodations to persons with physical disabilities, if their employees do not physically work at their legal address?
Is there a general principle that guides employees, agencies, and the end-client in these situations? If there is a general theory - is there a list of specific rules that can be referred to?
united-states contractors contracting disability
asked May 21 '15 at 13:54
Andyz Smith
1599
Here's some EEOC statements about temporary and other staffing firms: eeoc.gov/policy/docs/guidance-contingent.html
– mkennedy
May 21 '15 at 17:53
It is my understanding that the property owner bears the burden for physical access. As to providing assistive technologies, that would most likely be a contractual concern between the agency and the company using the agency. However, compliance with ADA is a legal issue, and offering legal advice is off-topic for this site. Have to VTC.
– Wesley Long
Jun 24 '15 at 13:34
I would refer you to this site's policy on what is and is not in scope for workplace: workplace.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic
– Wesley Long
Jun 24 '15 at 13:47
@WesleyLong See my answer. See also Mr Doggen's answer and why it is not a contractual concern. It is a matter of general law that agencies and end-clients are BOTH considered an employer of a certain person. As employer(s), all are required to follow the same rules, and in fact, all are required by existing statute to work together to ascertain and provide reasonable accommodation.
– Andyz Smith
Jun 25 '15 at 0:07
suggest improvements |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
If a subcontractor or temporary agency is the legal employer of an individual, how can they comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirement to provide reasonable accommodations to persons with physical disabilities, if their employees do not physically work at their legal address?
Is there a general principle that guides employees, agencies, and the end-client in these situations? If there is a general theory - is there a list of specific rules that can be referred to?
united-states contractors contracting disability
asked May 21 '15 at 13:54
Andyz Smith
1599
If a subcontractor or temporary agency is the legal employer of an individual, how can they comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirement to provide reasonable accommodations to persons with physical disabilities, if their employees do not physically work at their legal address?
Is there a general principle that guides employees, agencies, and the end-client in these situations? If there is a general theory - is there a list of specific rules that can be referred to?
united-states contractors contracting disability
asked May 21 '15 at 13:54
Andyz Smith
1599
edited Jun 29 '15 at 22:33
asked May 21 '15 at 13:54
Andyz Smith
1599
asked May 21 '15 at 13:54
Andyz Smith
1599
asked May 21 '15 at 13:54
Andyz Smith
1599
1599
Here's some EEOC statements about temporary and other staffing firms: eeoc.gov/policy/docs/guidance-contingent.html
– mkennedy
May 21 '15 at 17:53
It is my understanding that the property owner bears the burden for physical access. As to providing assistive technologies, that would most likely be a contractual concern between the agency and the company using the agency. However, compliance with ADA is a legal issue, and offering legal advice is off-topic for this site. Have to VTC.
– Wesley Long
Jun 24 '15 at 13:34
I would refer you to this site's policy on what is and is not in scope for workplace: workplace.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic
– Wesley Long
Jun 24 '15 at 13:47
@WesleyLong See my answer. See also Mr Doggen's answer and why it is not a contractual concern. It is a matter of general law that agencies and end-clients are BOTH considered an employer of a certain person. As employer(s), all are required to follow the same rules, and in fact, all are required by existing statute to work together to ascertain and provide reasonable accommodation.
– Andyz Smith
Jun 25 '15 at 0:07
suggest improvements |Â
Here's some EEOC statements about temporary and other staffing firms: eeoc.gov/policy/docs/guidance-contingent.html
– mkennedy
May 21 '15 at 17:53
It is my understanding that the property owner bears the burden for physical access. As to providing assistive technologies, that would most likely be a contractual concern between the agency and the company using the agency. However, compliance with ADA is a legal issue, and offering legal advice is off-topic for this site. Have to VTC.
– Wesley Long
Jun 24 '15 at 13:34
I would refer you to this site's policy on what is and is not in scope for workplace: workplace.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic
– Wesley Long
Jun 24 '15 at 13:47
@WesleyLong See my answer. See also Mr Doggen's answer and why it is not a contractual concern. It is a matter of general law that agencies and end-clients are BOTH considered an employer of a certain person. As employer(s), all are required to follow the same rules, and in fact, all are required by existing statute to work together to ascertain and provide reasonable accommodation.
– Andyz Smith
Jun 25 '15 at 0:07
Here's some EEOC statements about temporary and other staffing firms: eeoc.gov/policy/docs/guidance-contingent.html
– mkennedy
May 21 '15 at 17:53
Here's some EEOC statements about temporary and other staffing firms: eeoc.gov/policy/docs/guidance-contingent.html
– mkennedy
May 21 '15 at 17:53
It is my understanding that the property owner bears the burden for physical access. As to providing assistive technologies, that would most likely be a contractual concern between the agency and the company using the agency. However, compliance with ADA is a legal issue, and offering legal advice is off-topic for this site. Have to VTC.
– Wesley Long
Jun 24 '15 at 13:34
It is my understanding that the property owner bears the burden for physical access. As to providing assistive technologies, that would most likely be a contractual concern between the agency and the company using the agency. However, compliance with ADA is a legal issue, and offering legal advice is off-topic for this site. Have to VTC.
– Wesley Long
Jun 24 '15 at 13:34
I would refer you to this site's policy on what is and is not in scope for workplace: workplace.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic
– Wesley Long
Jun 24 '15 at 13:47
I would refer you to this site's policy on what is and is not in scope for workplace: workplace.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic
– Wesley Long
Jun 24 '15 at 13:47
@WesleyLong See my answer. See also Mr Doggen's answer and why it is not a contractual concern. It is a matter of general law that agencies and end-clients are BOTH considered an employer of a certain person. As employer(s), all are required to follow the same rules, and in fact, all are required by existing statute to work together to ascertain and provide reasonable accommodation.
– Andyz Smith
Jun 25 '15 at 0:07
@WesleyLong See my answer. See also Mr Doggen's answer and why it is not a contractual concern. It is a matter of general law that agencies and end-clients are BOTH considered an employer of a certain person. As employer(s), all are required to follow the same rules, and in fact, all are required by existing statute to work together to ascertain and provide reasonable accommodation.
– Andyz Smith
Jun 25 '15 at 0:07
suggest improvements |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
If their employees do not physically work at their legal address they will work at some other company's legal address and there will be a contract between the two companies.
In that contract company X can stipulate that company Y should comply with ADA, if that is not already explicitly required by law (in which case no additional statements are necessary in the contract).
If there are are already explicit requirements in law, they can go two ways. As an example, here in Holland, in building and construction work, there is a 'chain accountability', where a contractor can be held accountable for a subcontractor not sticking to some laws.
Whether such requirements exist in American law regarding ADA (and hence, whether the contractor/subcontractor need to write something about ADA in their contract), is a legal issue that is off-topic for this site.
You will have to research that elsewhere. I'm sure that ada.gov or any other site about ADA will have that info somewhere.
answered May 21 '15 at 14:24
Jan Doggen
11.5k145066
I can't see how this is the right answer. In a agency/end-client situation, both companies are considered to be an employer, they are joint employers. That one employer could stipulate some subset of the law that applies equally to them both is just not reasonable, and actually I would think, illegal itself. You just can't draft a contract that says to another, obey they law, or our contract is done.
– Andyz Smith
Jun 24 '15 at 14:47
suggest improvements |Â
up vote
-2
down vote
accepted
The party that operates the physical location where the temporary worker is stationed is one of the employee's several, joint, employers if: such party supervises and directs employee's work. As such any and all of several, joint, employer(s) are subject to and liable for compliance with the Americans With Disability Act.
Thank you M Kennedy. for providing a reference to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines regarding contingent and temporary staffing firms, circa. 2001
answered May 21 '15 at 18:27
Andyz Smith
1599
suggest improvements |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
If their employees do not physically work at their legal address they will work at some other company's legal address and there will be a contract between the two companies.
In that contract company X can stipulate that company Y should comply with ADA, if that is not already explicitly required by law (in which case no additional statements are necessary in the contract).
If there are are already explicit requirements in law, they can go two ways. As an example, here in Holland, in building and construction work, there is a 'chain accountability', where a contractor can be held accountable for a subcontractor not sticking to some laws.
Whether such requirements exist in American law regarding ADA (and hence, whether the contractor/subcontractor need to write something about ADA in their contract), is a legal issue that is off-topic for this site.
You will have to research that elsewhere. I'm sure that ada.gov or any other site about ADA will have that info somewhere.
answered May 21 '15 at 14:24
Jan Doggen
11.5k145066
I can't see how this is the right answer. In a agency/end-client situation, both companies are considered to be an employer, they are joint employers. That one employer could stipulate some subset of the law that applies equally to them both is just not reasonable, and actually I would think, illegal itself. You just can't draft a contract that says to another, obey they law, or our contract is done.
– Andyz Smith
Jun 24 '15 at 14:47
suggest improvements |Â
up vote
3
down vote
If their employees do not physically work at their legal address they will work at some other company's legal address and there will be a contract between the two companies.
In that contract company X can stipulate that company Y should comply with ADA, if that is not already explicitly required by law (in which case no additional statements are necessary in the contract).
If there are are already explicit requirements in law, they can go two ways. As an example, here in Holland, in building and construction work, there is a 'chain accountability', where a contractor can be held accountable for a subcontractor not sticking to some laws.
Whether such requirements exist in American law regarding ADA (and hence, whether the contractor/subcontractor need to write something about ADA in their contract), is a legal issue that is off-topic for this site.
You will have to research that elsewhere. I'm sure that ada.gov or any other site about ADA will have that info somewhere.
answered May 21 '15 at 14:24
Jan Doggen
11.5k145066
I can't see how this is the right answer. In a agency/end-client situation, both companies are considered to be an employer, they are joint employers. That one employer could stipulate some subset of the law that applies equally to them both is just not reasonable, and actually I would think, illegal itself. You just can't draft a contract that says to another, obey they law, or our contract is done.
– Andyz Smith
Jun 24 '15 at 14:47
suggest improvements |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
If their employees do not physically work at their legal address they will work at some other company's legal address and there will be a contract between the two companies.
In that contract company X can stipulate that company Y should comply with ADA, if that is not already explicitly required by law (in which case no additional statements are necessary in the contract).
If there are are already explicit requirements in law, they can go two ways. As an example, here in Holland, in building and construction work, there is a 'chain accountability', where a contractor can be held accountable for a subcontractor not sticking to some laws.
Whether such requirements exist in American law regarding ADA (and hence, whether the contractor/subcontractor need to write something about ADA in their contract), is a legal issue that is off-topic for this site.
You will have to research that elsewhere. I'm sure that ada.gov or any other site about ADA will have that info somewhere.
answered May 21 '15 at 14:24
Jan Doggen
11.5k145066
If their employees do not physically work at their legal address they will work at some other company's legal address and there will be a contract between the two companies.
In that contract company X can stipulate that company Y should comply with ADA, if that is not already explicitly required by law (in which case no additional statements are necessary in the contract).
If there are are already explicit requirements in law, they can go two ways. As an example, here in Holland, in building and construction work, there is a 'chain accountability', where a contractor can be held accountable for a subcontractor not sticking to some laws.
Whether such requirements exist in American law regarding ADA (and hence, whether the contractor/subcontractor need to write something about ADA in their contract), is a legal issue that is off-topic for this site.
You will have to research that elsewhere. I'm sure that ada.gov or any other site about ADA will have that info somewhere.
answered May 21 '15 at 14:24
Jan Doggen
11.5k145066
edited May 22 '15 at 7:31
answered May 21 '15 at 14:24
Jan Doggen
11.5k145066
answered May 21 '15 at 14:24
Jan Doggen
11.5k145066
answered May 21 '15 at 14:24
Jan Doggen
11.5k145066
11.5k145066
I can't see how this is the right answer. In a agency/end-client situation, both companies are considered to be an employer, they are joint employers. That one employer could stipulate some subset of the law that applies equally to them both is just not reasonable, and actually I would think, illegal itself. You just can't draft a contract that says to another, obey they law, or our contract is done.
– Andyz Smith
Jun 24 '15 at 14:47
suggest improvements |Â
I can't see how this is the right answer. In a agency/end-client situation, both companies are considered to be an employer, they are joint employers. That one employer could stipulate some subset of the law that applies equally to them both is just not reasonable, and actually I would think, illegal itself. You just can't draft a contract that says to another, obey they law, or our contract is done.
– Andyz Smith
Jun 24 '15 at 14:47
I can't see how this is the right answer. In a agency/end-client situation, both companies are considered to be an employer, they are joint employers. That one employer could stipulate some subset of the law that applies equally to them both is just not reasonable, and actually I would think, illegal itself. You just can't draft a contract that says to another, obey they law, or our contract is done.
– Andyz Smith
Jun 24 '15 at 14:47
I can't see how this is the right answer. In a agency/end-client situation, both companies are considered to be an employer, they are joint employers. That one employer could stipulate some subset of the law that applies equally to them both is just not reasonable, and actually I would think, illegal itself. You just can't draft a contract that says to another, obey they law, or our contract is done.
– Andyz Smith
Jun 24 '15 at 14:47
suggest improvements |Â
up vote
-2
down vote
accepted
The party that operates the physical location where the temporary worker is stationed is one of the employee's several, joint, employers if: such party supervises and directs employee's work. As such any and all of several, joint, employer(s) are subject to and liable for compliance with the Americans With Disability Act.
Thank you M Kennedy. for providing a reference to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines regarding contingent and temporary staffing firms, circa. 2001
answered May 21 '15 at 18:27
Andyz Smith
1599
suggest improvements |Â
up vote
-2
down vote
accepted
The party that operates the physical location where the temporary worker is stationed is one of the employee's several, joint, employers if: such party supervises and directs employee's work. As such any and all of several, joint, employer(s) are subject to and liable for compliance with the Americans With Disability Act.
Thank you M Kennedy. for providing a reference to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines regarding contingent and temporary staffing firms, circa. 2001
answered May 21 '15 at 18:27
Andyz Smith
1599
suggest improvements |Â
up vote
-2
down vote
accepted
up vote
-2
down vote
accepted
The party that operates the physical location where the temporary worker is stationed is one of the employee's several, joint, employers if: such party supervises and directs employee's work. As such any and all of several, joint, employer(s) are subject to and liable for compliance with the Americans With Disability Act.
Thank you M Kennedy. for providing a reference to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines regarding contingent and temporary staffing firms, circa. 2001
answered May 21 '15 at 18:27
Andyz Smith
1599
The party that operates the physical location where the temporary worker is stationed is one of the employee's several, joint, employers if: such party supervises and directs employee's work. As such any and all of several, joint, employer(s) are subject to and liable for compliance with the Americans With Disability Act.
Thank you M Kennedy. for providing a reference to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines regarding contingent and temporary staffing firms, circa. 2001
answered May 21 '15 at 18:27
Andyz Smith
1599
edited May 23 '15 at 16:33
answered May 21 '15 at 18:27
Andyz Smith
1599
answered May 21 '15 at 18:27
Andyz Smith
1599
answered May 21 '15 at 18:27
Andyz Smith
1599
1599
suggest improvements |Â
suggest improvements |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworkplace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f46983%2fhow-can-a-subcontractor-or-temporary-agency-comply-with-the-americans-with-disab%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Here's some EEOC statements about temporary and other staffing firms: eeoc.gov/policy/docs/guidance-contingent.html
– mkennedy
May 21 '15 at 17:53
It is my understanding that the property owner bears the burden for physical access. As to providing assistive technologies, that would most likely be a contractual concern between the agency and the company using the agency. However, compliance with ADA is a legal issue, and offering legal advice is off-topic for this site. Have to VTC.
– Wesley Long
Jun 24 '15 at 13:34
I would refer you to this site's policy on what is and is not in scope for workplace: workplace.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic
– Wesley Long
Jun 24 '15 at 13:47
@WesleyLong See my answer. See also Mr Doggen's answer and why it is not a contractual concern. It is a matter of general law that agencies and end-clients are BOTH considered an employer of a certain person. As employer(s), all are required to follow the same rules, and in fact, all are required by existing statute to work together to ascertain and provide reasonable accommodation.
– Andyz Smith
Jun 25 '15 at 0:07