1. Computers, Inc. has an employee who has special accommodation needs in order to perform her job. These special accommodations would cost Computers $10,000 to implement. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provides that an employer is required to make “reasonable accommodation” for employees with a disability, but does not define “reasonable accommodation”.
Assume that the size of an employer-company determines the maximum amount of money that would be reasonable for an employer to spend to make “reasonable accommodation” for a disabled employee. Under the principle of stare decisis, determine which of the following would apply to Computers.
A. If a similar-sized employer-company had been required by a court to spend $15,000 in the past for reasonable accommodation, Computers likely would be required to spend the $10,000.
B. If a similar-sized employer-company had not been required to spend $15,000 in the past for reasonable accommodation, this would ensure that Computers would not have to spend the $10,000.
C. Whether a similar-sized employer-company had been required by a court to spend $15,000 in the past for reasonable accommodation would be irrelevant for Computers because it occurred in the past.
D. Whether a similar-sized employer-company had been required by a court to spend $15,000 in the past for reasonable accommodation would be irrelevant for Computers; courts make all decisions on a case-by- case basis.
2. A city ordinance permits street vendors to operate only within certain commercial areas of the city to prevent dangerous traffic congestion. The street vendors sued the city claiming that the restrictions were a violation of their equal protection rights as other businesses are not restricted to operating only in certain commercial areas within the city.
How would you classify the ordinance?
A. Constitutional; because the city has a justifiable purpose in enacting the ordinance, it does not violate the equal protection rights of street vendors.
B. Constitutional; because street vendors are private businesses, they are not protected by the equal protection clause of the 14 th Amendment.
C. Unconstitutional; the ordinance unduly discriminates against street vendors as compared to other business owners and thus, violates the vendors’ equal protection rights.
D. Unconstitutional; privately owned vendors, unlike public businesses, have a constitutional right to conduct business in any commercial area of their choice.
3. Assume that Virginia enacted a law prohibiting, until further notice, all grocery stores in Virginia from selling all powdered spices manufactured in, or shipped from, Maryland. This law was enacted because it was discovered that the spices recently manufactured in Maryland were infected with bacteria. Determine the constitutionality of the Maryland statute. The statute is:
A. Unconstitutional; it violates grocery store owners’ substantive and procedural due process rights under the 5 th and 14 th Amendments because they are private businesses.
B. Unconstitutional; the statute imposes an undue burden on interstate commerce.
C. Constitutional; it is a valid exercise of Maryland’s police power.
D. Constitutional; the statute imposes an undue burden on intrastate and interstate commerce.