- Article Information
- Published on Friday, 14 June 2013 05:59
A federal district court has denied United Parcel Service's (UPS) motion to appeal an earlier ruling in favor of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The contested ruling allows the EEOC’s class action disability discrimination case to proceed. In its lawsuit the EEOC alleged that UPS violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by allowing only 12-month leaves of absence, failing to provide disabled employees with further reasonable accommodations for their disabilities, and firing them if they exceeded those parameters. The EEOC went on to file two amended complaints, both of which the court dismissed at UPS's request, finding that the EEOC still had not alleged adequate factual information with respect to unidentified class members. The EEOC did not identify by name more than two of its class members in any of its complaints. According to EEOC Chicago Regional Attorney John Hendrickson, the cases have been closely watched by representatives of both employers and employees because of their impact upon how EEOC may litigate class cases challenging systemic discrimination in the work place. "Yesterday's decision affirms the court's prior ruling that the EEOC can pursue claims of employment discrimination on behalf of persons whose identities may not be known at the outset of the case," he said. Read More.
- Article Information
- Published on Friday, 07 June 2013 15:35
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed a lawsuit against Professional Freezing Services, a cold storage warehouse and distribution company, alleging that the company violated federal law by failing to hire an applicant for its warehouse manager position because he had prostate cancer. EEOC District Director John P. Rowe, who supervised the investigation said, "We found that Professional Freezing refused to go forward with Havel's hire-which had been in the works for some time-because it found out he
had cancer." Read More.
- Article Information
- Published on Monday, 03 June 2013 16:56
Luminant Mining Company LLC, a Dallas, Texas coal mining company, will pay $150,000 to a former equipment operator to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The agency charged that the coal mine fired equipment operator James Tarver nine days after receiving information from a doctor indicating that he was disabled, and recommending an accommodation that, according to the EEOC, the company could have easily granted. Tarver has a clubfoot and wears a foot brace. He requested as an accommodation that he not be required to stand on concrete more than one hour per day. Tarver was hired to operate heavy equipment. After initially working in that capacity, however, Tarver's supervisor started making Tarver perform manual labor in the coal barn. This required standing on concrete all day long sweeping and washing the concrete floor. "This is what can happen when a company flatly refuses to maintain and enforce an ADA reasonable accommodation policy," said EEOC Senior Trial Attorney William C. Backhaus. Read More.
- Article Information
- Published on Friday, 31 May 2013 05:57
In a closely watched case, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a written order denying United Airlines’s petition for review of a disability discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This means the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal's September 7, 2012 decision will stand, holding that "reasonable accommodation" under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) may require employers to provide employees with disabilities with "reassignment to a vacant position" when the employee cannot be accommodated in his or her current position. The EEOC's lawsuit charged that United violated the ADA by requiring workers with disabilities to compete for vacant positions for which they were qualified and which they needed in order to continue working. The company's practice frequently prevented employees with disabilities from continuing their employment with the company. The Seventh Circuit reversed the dismissal of the EEOC's disability discrimination lawsuit and found that "the ADA does indeed mandate that an employer appoint employees with disabilities to vacant positions for which they are qualified, provided that such accommodations would be ordinarily reasonable and would not present an undue hardship to the employer." Read More.
- Article Information
- Published on Friday, 17 May 2013 15:30
As a recent case demonstrates, employers must exercise care to avoid a violation of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) by permitting improper questions, such as questions about an employee’s family history, by a contract medical provider during preemployment physicals. The case involves Fabricut, Inc., one of the world's largest distributors of decorative fabrics. The company has agreed to pay $50,000 and furnish other relief to settle a disability and genetic information discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This is the first lawsuit ever filed by the EEOC alleging genetic discrimination. In its lawsuit, the EEOC charged that Tulsa-based Fabricut violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when it refused to hire a woman for the position of memo clerk because it regarded her as having carpal tunnel syndrome, and violated GINA when it asked for her family medical history in its post-offer medical examination. David Lopez, General Counsel of the EEOC commented that, "Employers need to be aware that GINA prohibits requesting family medical history…When illegal questions are required as part of the hiring process, the EEOC will be vigilant to ensure that no one be denied a job on a prohibited basis."
According to the EEOC's suit, Rhonda Jones, worked for Fabricut in a temporary position as a memo clerk for 90 days. When her temporary assignment was coming to an end, she applied for a permanent job in that position.
Fabricut made Jones an offer of permanent employment on August 9, 2011, and sent her to its contract medical examiner, Knox Laboratory, for a pre-employment drug test and physical. When Jones reported for her physical,
she was required to fill out a questionnaire and disclose the existence of numerous separately listed disorders in her family medical history. The questionnaire asked about the existence of heart disease, hypertension, cancer,tuberculosis, diabetes, arthritis and "mental disorders" in her family. Jones was then subjected to medical testing, from which the examiner concluded that further evaluation was needed to determine whether Jones suffered from carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS).
Fabricut told Jones she needed to be evaluated for CTS by her personal physician and to provide the company with the results. Jones's physician gave her a battery of tests and concluded that she did not have CTS. Although Jones provided this information to Fabricut, the company rescinded its job offer because Knox Labs indicated that she did have CTS. Jones made a written request for reconsideration, emphasizing that she does not have CTS, but Fabricut allegedly ignored her request. Such alleged conduct violates GINA, which makes it illegal to discriminate against employees or applicants because of genetic information, which includes family medical history; and also restricts employers from requesting, requiring or purchasing such information. GINA was signed into law in 2008, and took effect the following year. One of the six national priorities identified by the EEOC's Strategic Enforcement Plan is for the agency to address emerging and developing issues in equal employment law, which includes genetic discrimination. Read More.
- EEOC Issues Revised Publications on Specific Disabilities
- EEOC Files Genetic Information Discrimination Lawsuit Against Rehab Center
- EEOC Alleges Company Required Employees to Participate in Scientology Religious Practices
- Panel of Experts at EEOC Conference Discuss Legality of Wellness Programs
- Jury Awards $240 Million for Alleged Disability Discrimination
- Court Holds Employee Lawfully Terminated for Failure to Disclose Drug Addition
- Employer to Pay $40,000 to Settle Alleged Disability Discrimination Lawsuit
- 8th Circuit Upholds Jury's Decision That if Employee is Prohibited by His Doctor From Engaging in the Essential Functions of His Job, no Accommodation is Necessary.
- Employers Cannot Discriminate on the Basis of a “Perceived Disability”
- Appeals Court Upholds $425,000 Award to Disabled Former Employee
- EEOC Alleges Employee was Allegedly Fired for Not Wearing Prosthetic Arm
- Employer Sued For Allegedly Failing to Return Employee to Work After Surgery
- Dillard’s Will Pay $2 Million to Settle Disability Discrimination Lawsuit
- Rite Aid Agrees to Settle Alleged Disability and Retaliation Discrimination Lawsuit
- Understanding An Employer’s Ongoing Obligation to Accommodate Disabled Employees
- Wendy’s Franchisee Agrees to Pay $41,000 to Settle Disability Discrimination Lawsuit
- HR Practice Pointer: Morbid Obesity is a Disability Under the ADA
- EEOC Files Lawsuit Against a Bank for Alleged Age and Disability Discrimination
- Disabled Workers Awarded $1.3M For Alleged Pay Discrimination
- Tenth Circuit Issues Confirming Decision: Employers Are Not Required to Provide Employees with Indefinite Leave from the Performance of Essential Functions
- Seventh Circuit Alters the ADA Landscape by Reversing Its Precedent on Job Reassignment
- Employer Will Pay $95,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit
- Court Rules “Psychological Counseling” May Constitute a “Medical Examination” Under ADA
- Indefinite Exemption From Essential Functions is Not a Reasonable Accommodation
- 11th Circuit Holds Employer’s Wellness Program is Within ADA’s Safe Harbor Provision
- Wal-Mart Will Pay $50,000 for Alleged Failure to Accommodate a Disabled Employee
- Employer to Pay $50,000 for Alleged Disability Discrimination Related to Job Applicant
- “Morbid Obesity” is a Disability Under the ADA
- EEOC Files Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Against Howard University
- Employers Must Avoid Discriminating Against Qualified Job Applicants With a Disability
- Employers May Need To Offer An Accommodation To An Employee Returning From A Medical Leave Of Absence
- Employees May Be Entitled To A Reasonable Accommodation Upon Returning To Work From A Medical Leave
- Employers Cannot Refuse To Hire A Qualified Applicant Because Of A Disability
- An Adverse Employment Action Based On “Perception” Of A Disability Can Create Liability
- 9th Circuit Holds Medical Marijuana Use Is Not Protected By ADA
- Court Holds Employee Created A Direct Threat To The Workplace Due to His Heart Condition
- According to the 5th Circuit, “Indefinite Leave is Not a Reasonable Accommodation”
- 9th Circuit Holds “Dependable Performance Requires Reliable and Dependable Attendance”
- Determining if a Disability Exists Under the ADA is a Case by Case Determination
- U.S. Supreme Court Holds “Ministerial Exception” Bars Employee’s ADA Claim
- A Medical Leave of Absence Can be a Reasonable Accommodation
- Job Qualification Standard Requiring High School Diploma May Violate ADA
- EEOC Alleges Worker Subjected To Name Calling, Denied An Accommodation, Then Fired
- Bank Of America Allegedly Failed To Accommodate Blind Employee
- Court Rules Employer Properly Terminated Disabled Employee For Performance Issues
- Employer Sued For Allegedly Demoting Employee Due To Disability
- Employee Allegedly Abused FMLA Leave By Taking It Around Holidays
- Reinstatement To Comparable Position Not Required After More Than 12 Weeks Of CFRA Leave
- $600,000 Verdict for Failure to Accommodate
- Experts Give Opinions on Leave as Reasonable Accommodation
- Employee Files Suit Against U.S. Bank for Disability Discrimination