A lawsuit filed by Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan against Family Video Movie Club, Inc. alleging that the company violated state disability laws governing access to public facilities has been transferred from Sangamon County Circuit Court to Cook County Circuit Court. The suit states that most Family Video stores have accessibility violations that make it difficult or impossible for an individual with a disability to enter the store. The violations include inaccessible parking spaces, steep ramps leading to store entrances, and customer service counters that are too high. The suit will now be prosecuted by Assistant State Attorney General Leah Wade and is currently in the discovery stage of the proceedings.
For more information contact the Illinois Attorney General's Chicago Office at 312-814-5684.

The U.S. 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court ruling in the case of Christopher Opsteen v. Keller Structures Inc. that an employee who claimed to be totally and permanently disabled to qualify for benefits under Social Security and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) does not have standing as a qualified person with a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when the claims contradict the provisions of the ADA. Christopher Opsteen suffered a fall that left him with significant cognitive impairments and he claimed he was unable to perform his job as a laborer in Keller's steel shop. In his claim for benefits he stated that his cognitive impairment presented a risk to himself and others and medical evaluations stated that he was chiefly impaired in memory and attentiveness. Under Keller's ERISA plan Opsteen was required to demonstrate that he could not perform the essential functions of his job even with a reasonable accommodation. Mr. Opsteen's wife and medical information supported his contention. Mr. Opsteen desired to return to work and suggested two accommodations; an indefinite leave of absence and a full-time job coach who would take precautions on his behalf. Because of his prior claims that he was unable to do his job his requests for reasonable accommodation under the ADA conflicted with his claim to receive benefits under ERISA since he was deemed unqualified to perform the essential functions of his job even with a reasonable accommodation to qualify for ERISA. The 7^th Circuit Court affirmed the lower court ruling denying that an employee cannot have standing under both laws when the claims are contradictory in nature.