By B.N. Frank
In the U.S. Electromagnetic Sensitivity (aka EMF Sensitivity) is a federally recognized disability. Doctors and scientists continue to issue warnings about all illnesses (including cancer) caused or increased by exposure to electromagnetic radiation.
Common sources include cell phones (see 1, 2, 3, 4), cell towers, personal and “Smart” home appliances, devices and, wearables (see 1, 2, 3), utility “Smart” meters (electric, gas, and water), WiFi routers and more. In fact, last year a government study determined that U.S. Embassy workers stationed in China and Cuba were likely harmed by exposure to pulsed microwave energy. The source of the energy is still unknown.
A press release was recently issued by the law firm defending an L.A. teacher who wants to be accommodated for Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity so she can continue to work.
Brown v. LAUSD establishes that symptoms of ‘electromagnetic hypersensitivity’ a.k.a. ‘Microwave Sickness’ could be deemed a ‘physical disability’ under the FEHA
LOS ANGELES, CA / ACCESSWIRE / March 26, 2021 / Today, JML Law announced it has won a major appeal in the California Court of Appeal that establishes that a plaintiff who pleads symptoms and physical manifestations of “electromagnetic hypersensitivity” has adequately alleged that they suffer from a “physical disability” under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).
In the majority opinion handed down in the case, Brown v. LAUSD (Appeal No. B294240), the Court of Appeal recognized that it doesn’t matter whether or not other courts in the United States have recognized “electromagnetic hypersensitivity” as a disability under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) because JML Law’s client, Laurie Brown, has brought her case not under the ADA, but under FEHA, which is broader in scope. The Court of Appeal held that Brown sufficiently alleged that she suffered from a physical disability under the FEHA and that she sufficiently stated a cause of action for failure to accommodate, where she alleged that LAUSD refused to honor an accommodation which LAUSD had agreed to provide to Brown. The Court of Appeal stated that based on their reading of Brown’s First Amended Complaint, “LAUSD’s actions here do not align with those of an employer taking positive steps to accommodate the employee’s limitations.”
The complete published opinion by the Court of Appeal can be accessed at https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B294240.PDF.
JML Law represents Brown, a former middle school teacher who had worked for LAUSD for decades and had hoped to continue teaching there for years to come. However, that was made impossible because LAUSD allegedly refused to accommodate her in returning to the classroom. As a result of not being accommodated, her employment with LAUSD ended.
Activist Post reports regularly about unsafe technology. For more information, visit our archives and the following websites:
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.