Archive

Archive for the ‘Disability’ Category

All in a Month

January 18, 2012 Leave a comment

A review of the EEOC’s press release from the 30-day period between December 13 and January 13 reveals the following:

Pepsi to Pay $3.13 Million and Made Major Policy Changes to Resolve EEOC Finding of Nationwide Hiring Discrimination Against African Americans 1/11/12

Family Dollar Stores of Virginia to Pay $45,000 to Settle EEOC Sexual Harassment Lawsuit 1/11/12

Matrix L.L.C. Will Pay $450,000 to Settle EEOC Race Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit 1/6/12

DynCorp to Pay $155,000 for Sex-Based Harassment and Retaliation In Iraq 1/6/12

Bank of Albuquerque Discriminated on the Basis of Age and Sex, EEOC Alleges in Lawsuit 1/4/12

Grand Central Partnership Fired Rastafarian for Complaining of Threatened Violence, EEOC Says 1/3/12

RCC Consultants, Inc. Sued for Disability Discrimination 12/29/11

EEOC Sues Midwest ISO for Disability Discrimination 12/23/11

Mesa Systems Sued by EEOC for National Origin Discrimination 12/23/11

American Apparel Agrees to Settle EEOC Disability Bias Suit for $60,000 12/19/11

Jim Robinson Ford-Lincoln-Mercury to Pay $56,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Lawsuit 12/16/11

EEOC Retaliation Case Against Cognis to Proceed, Federal Judge Orders 12/16/11

Wal-Mart to Pay $275,000 to Former Employee Fired after Cancer Surgery 12/16/11

EEOC Launches Small Business Task Force 12/15/11

EEOC Sues Wal-Mart for Disability Discrimination and Retaliation 12/15/11

B&B Pharmacy in Bellflower to Pay $70,000 for Disability Discrimination In EEOC Suit 12/15/11

M. Slavin & Sons to Pay $900,000 to Settle EEOC Discrimination Suit 12/15/11

Vitas Healthcare Sued By EEOC in Disability Discrimination Lawsuit 12/14/11

Dairy Queen Restaurant Sued By EEOC for Sexual Harassment and Retaliation 12/14/11

Federal Court Signs Order for Blockbuster Inc. To Pay Over $2m to Settle EEOC Suit for Sex, Race and National Origin Discrimination, Retaliation 12/14/11

UPS Unit to Pay $95,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit 12/14/11

King Soopers to Pay $80,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit 12/13/11

Bottom line: The EEOC is cranking it up. Make sure you have your disability, discrimination, and sexual harassment training and tools up to date…or you could be the next press release!

California Supreme Court Grants Review of Important Immigration/Discrimination Law Case

December 5, 2011 Leave a comment

The Case of Salas v. Sierra Chemical (2011) caused quite a stir because the appellate court dismissed a disability discrimination claim of undocumented alien based on unclean hands. Now the California Supreme Court will decide this far ranging issue. The appellate court essential took much of the teeth out of a legislative amendment to protect illegal aliens against discriminatory and other illegal workplace conduct…regardless of their status. We’ll be keeping an eye out for this one!

Docket
Court of Appeal Opinion

California Orders United Parcel Service to Pay Over $96,000

November 5, 2011 Leave a comment

ELK GROVE, CA — The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) announced today that United Parcel Service (UPS) must pay more than $96,000 in damages after the company fired employee Eva Linda Mason because of her disability. The Fair Employment and Housing Commission (Commission) found that UPS had unlawfully terminated Ms. Mason even though she could perform the essential functions of her job.

UPS hired Ms. Mason in 1997 primarily as an Operations Management Specialist to handle customer calls and complaints on shipments. Although she occasionally located packages in a warehouse, handling packages was not part of her job. After Ms. Mason had knee surgery and took a leave of absence to recover in 2007, she continued to carry out the essential customer service functions of her job. Nonetheless, UPS perceived Ms. Mason as disabled because she had some restrictions, such as limited standing, walking, bending, and kneeling. UPS had a 12-month cap on the length of time employees with disabilities could be reasonably accommodated from their regular duties. UPS applied this cap to Ms. Mason and fired her in August 2008.

“Using a 12-month cap to fire disabled employees is unlawful under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA),” said the Department of Fair Employment and Housing Director Phyllis Cheng. “Employees with disabilities must be allowed to work if they can perform their essential job duties with or without accommodation.”

The Commission ordered UPS to pay $96,170 in damages, including $10,000 in administrative fines to the State. UPS must also post a notice about its liability and develop a policy and train management on disability discrimination.

State Orders Air Canada to Pay over $325,000 for Refusing to Accommodate Customer Service Agent’s Disability

October 27, 2011 Leave a comment

ELK GROVE, CA — The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) announced today that Air Canada must pay more than $325,000 in damages after the company fired one of its customer service representatives because of her disability. The Fair Employment and Housing Commission (Commission) found that Air Canada failed to accommodate the employee’s disability and then fired her because she could not lift cargo – a job function customer service representatives rarely perform.

“Employers must attempt to find reasonable modifications that allow employees with disabilities to keep working,” said the Department of Fair Employment and Housing Director Phyllis Cheng. “Using non-essential job functions as a pretext to deny employment to persons with disabilities is unlawful in California.” 

The employee, Caroline Messih Zemaitis, worked as a customer service agent for Air Canada at Los Angeles International Airport from 1993 to 2007.  Starting in 2004, she held a clerical position in the cargo division that did not involve physical labor.  In 2005 and 2006, Ms. Zemaitis injured her back, shoulder, knee and wrist, and her doctor restricted her from performing such tasks as heavy lifting and repeated bending.  She was able to keep working in the cargo division with minor accommodations such as Air Canada’s provision of a telephone headset and heating pad, and time off for physical therapy.  

When Ms. Zemaitis became pregnant, her back condition worsened and she took a medical leave of absence for about a year.  She tried to return to work in 2007 when her doctor released her with restrictions similar to those she had before, but Air Canada refused to respond to her many communications.  Instead, Air Canada terminated Ms. Zemaitis’s because she could not lift cargo, a job function the airline’s customer service agents rarely perform.

The Commission found during this precedential decision that Air Canada had violated the Fair Employment and Housing Act. It ordered them to pay Ms. Zemaitis $102,737 in back pay, $19,720 in lost benefits, and $125,000 for emotional distress.  Air Canada must further reinstate and pay Ms. Zemaitis $54,784 in wages plus interest and pay the State a $25,000 administrative fine.  The airline will also have to post a notice about their liability and develop a policy and train management on reasonable accommodations necessary to allow disabled employees to continue working.

EEOC Accuses United Insurance of Disability Discrimination

August 18, 2011 Leave a comment

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has filed suit against insurer United Insurance Co. of America, accusing it of disability discrimination for withdrawing a job offer to a recovering drug addict in a methadone treatment program.

According to the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Raleigh, N.C., in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission vs. United Insurance Co. of America, Craig Burns applied for a job as an insurance agent and representative at the Raleigh office of Chicago-based United Insurance, a Unitrin Inc. unit that provides life and accident and health insurance.

The insurer extended a job offer, conditional on his passing a drug test.

Mr. Burns is a recovering drug addict who has been enrolled in a methadone treatment program since at least 2004, according to the lawsuit.

His drug test showed the presence of methadone in his system. When United Insurance asked for a copy of his methadone prescription, he provided a letter from his treatment provider explaining his participation in the program. United then withdrew its job offer, according to the lawsuit.

Violation of ADA

The suit filed Tuesday alleges that the job withdrawal was due to Mr. Burns’ disability and violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.

“The effect of the practices complained of…has been to deprive (Mr.) Burns of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect his employment status because of his disability,” according to the EEOC suit, which seeks back pay, compensation, punitive damages and injunctive relief.

A Unitrin spokeswoman said the company does not comment on ongoing litigation.

Article courtesy of www.businessinsurance.com.

Pepsi Settles EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit

 EEOC Obtains $120,000 for Driver With Disability Denied Accommodation and Fired

SAN FRANCISCO — The Pepsi  Bottling Group, Inc. (NYSE: PBG) agreed to pay $120,000 and implement  preventive measures to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the  U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced  today.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Pepsi terminated Eldridge Davis, a  driver at its Hayward, Calif., facility, for “job abandonment and  violation of the company attendance policy,” even though Davis had followed  proper procedure to inform his supervisor and the company that he could not  finish his route due to his disability and needed to take medical leave.

Davis, age 48, had worked for Pepsi since October 1996  and was promoted to driver in December 1999.

The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)  prohibits disability discrimination and requires employers to make reasonable  accommodations to employees with disabilities. This settlement resolves EEOC v. Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc., CV 09-4594 EMC, filed in 2009 in  U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Under the terms of the consent decree settling  the suit, Pepsi agreed to implement training on anti-discrimination laws, post a  notice at the work site on the settlement and other injunctive relief, in  addition to paying Davis  $120,000.

“Medical  leave is a widely recognized accommodation, and in Mr. Davis’s case, could  easily have been granted, avoiding the loss of a valuable and experienced  employee,” said EEOC San Francisco Regional Attorney  William R. Tamayo. “Since recent  amendments to the ADA  have broadened the definition of disability, forward-thinking employers may  want to re-evaluate their policies on workplace accommodations. Studies show that reasonable accommodations  are frequently no- or low-cost, with the added benefit of improving  productivity and morale, reducing turnover and building a diverse and loyal work  force.”

EEOC ADA Enforcement Activity

Diability.gov released settlements in ADA cases related to somebody who had a car accident, somebody missing fingers on one hand, somebody with dwarfism, and somebody with Asperger syndrome. See https://www.disability.gov/civil_rights/enforcing_the_ada_%26_other_laws .

The point is this: As mentioned in the recent ADA Webinar, you run great risk when you don’t understand ADA obligations. Don’t assume people can’t do the job and don’t allow prejudice or bias to get in the way facts…and the law. US the tools and support on HR That Works to get this right!

EEOC Ruling Calls into Question Employers’ Ability to Respond to State Subpoenae for Medical Records

Have you ever gotten a court subpoena from an attorney asking for the employment records of an employee, including his or her complete medical records? Employers who receive a court subpoena for such records may have routinely assumed that it was okay to provide these records because a subpoena is a court order, and although the Americans with Disabilities Act  (“ADA”) restricts an employer’s ability to provide medical information regarding an employee, there is an exception to this confidentiality provision for court orders. However, a recent ruling from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) calls this standard operating procedure into question, at least for subpoenae issued by state courts.

The EEOC recently ruled that providing an employee’s medical records in response to a state court subpoena violated an employee’s privacy rights under the confidentiality requirements of the Rehabilitation Act, the federal statute that parallels the ADA for employees of the federal government. The facts are these: a maintenance mechanic for the United States Postal Service (“USPS”), Mr. Bennett, injured his back while on duty and later suffered a sinus/respiratory injury that further limited his ability to work. While he was still employed, Bennett filed an unrelated state court lawsuit against another company, Union Carbide Corporation. As part of Union Carbide’s defense to the unrelated lawsuit, it served a subpoena on the USPS, requesting Bennett’s payroll and personnel records, including his medical records. A Union Carbide Human Resources Associate compiled the requested documents, including correspondence between Bennett and his doctors regarding his medical diagnosis and his Workers’ Compensation claim forms listing injuries he claimed to have suffered, as well as documentation of his job offers for light duty. The files were produced to Union Carbide’s attorneys in response to the subpoena.

Bennett filed a claim with the EEOC alleging, in part, that the USPS had violated the confidentiality requirements of the Rehabilitation Act (which are parallel to those in the ADA) by disclosing his medical information to Union Carbide without his consent. His charges were initially dismissed, and Bennett appealed, only to have his charges dismissed again. However, in February, in a decision that went largely unnoticed, the EEOC held that “[a] request for an employee’s medical records pursuant to a discovery request in a civil action would not fit into one of the exceptions to the ADA’s confidentiality requirement.” In its reasoning, the EEOC claimed that, although the statute provides an exception to the confidentiality requirement and permits disclosure “pursuant to the order of a court of competent jurisdiction,” this exception was not applicable, because the subpoena was a state court subpoena, signed and issued by the Deputy Clerk of the state court where Bennett had filed his lawsuit against Union Carbide. The EEOC’s decision appears not to restrict an employer from producing such records in response to a federal court subpoena. However, unless and until the EEOC’s position is rebuked by the courts, we advise consulting with your labor and employment attorney prior to responding to any state court or other subpoena that requests information that could be considered confidential medical information under the ADA.

Courtesy of Worklaw® Network firm Skoler Abbott & Presser, P.C.

When a Mental Disability is No Excuse for Poor Conduct

In this case, a court employee (Willis) was fired in part for her bad conduct, including outbursts and threats of violence. She claimed her bipolar disorder caused the behavior cited as the basis for her termination, and the conduct occurred while she experienced a severe manic episode. Wills further alleged a group of coworkers triggered her manic episode by harassing her. Finally, Wills asserted the OC Court fired her in retaliation for complaining to her supervisors about the harassment. Thankfully, her disability discrimination claim failed. The court ruled an employer may reasonably distinguish between disability caused misconduct and the disability itself when the misconduct includes threats or violence against coworkers.  In these circumstances, terminating the employee based on the misconduct does not amount to discrimination prohibited by FEHA (or the ADA). To read the case go to: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/G043054.PDF.

EEOC Releases Final Regulations on ADAAA

On March 24, 2011, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued Final Regulations to implement the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA). Like the law they implement, the Regulations simplify and expand the determination of who has a “disability” and will make it easier for claimants to establish that they are protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The  ADAAA was enacted on September 25, 2008, and became effective on January 1, 2009. The ADAAA’s purpose is “to reinstate a broad scope of protection” by expanding the definition of the term “disability.” In enacting the ADAAA, Congress found that persons with many types of impairments – including epilepsy, diabetes, HIV infection, cancer, multiple sclerosis, intellectual disabilities, major depression, and bipolar disorder – have been unable to bring ADA claims because they were found not to meet the ADA’s definition of “disability.” Congress explicitly rejected certain Supreme Court interpretations of the term “disability,” finding that those decisions inappropriately narrowed the definition of disability.

The ADAAA directed the EEOC to amend its Regulations to reflect the changes made by the ADAAA. The EEOC’s Regulations clarify the following provisions of the law:

Disability. The Regulations retain the basic three-part definition of the term “disability”, as (i) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; (ii) a record of such an impairment; or (iii) being regarded as having such an impairment.

Impairment. The Regulations define “physical or mental impairment” as (1) any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more body systems, such as neurological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory (including speech organs), cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, immune, circulatory, hemic, lymphatic, skin, and endocrine; or (2) any mental or psychological disorder, such as an intellectual disability, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning disabilities.

With regard to pregnancy-related conditions, the Regulations clarify that although pregnancy itself is not an impairment, a pregnancy-related impairment that substantially limits a major life activity is a disability under the first prong of the definition. Alternatively, a pregnancy-related impairment may constitute a “record of” a substantially limiting impairment, or may be covered under the “regarded as” prong if it is the basis for a prohibited employment action and is not “transitory and minor.”

Major Life Activities. The Regulations include a non-exhaustive list of “major life activities” including, (i) caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, sitting, reaching, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, interacting with others, and working; and (ii) the operation of a major bodily function, including functions of the immune system, special sense organs and skin; normal cell growth; and digestive, genitourinary, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, cardiovascular, endocrine, hemic, lymphatic, musculoskeletal, and reproductive functions.

Notably, the standard established in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002), for determining whether an activity qualifies as a major life activity – that it be of “central importance to most people’s daily lives” – no longer applies. In determining other examples of major life activities, the term “major” shall not be interpreted strictly so as to create a demanding standard for disability.

Substantially Limits. The Regulations make clear that some impairments, given their inherent nature, will virtually always be found to impose a substantial limitation on a major life activity. For these impairments, the individualized assessment should be particularly simple and straightforward. The Regulations include examples of impairments that should easily be found to substantially limit a major life activity, including: deafness substantially limits hearing; blindness substantially limits seeing; an intellectual disability substantially limits brain function; partially or completely missing limbs or mobility impairments requiring the use of a wheelchair substantially limit musculoskeletal function; autism substantially limits brain function; cancer substantially limits normal cell growth; cerebral palsy substantially limits brain function; diabetes substantially limits endocrine function; epilepsy substantially limits neurological function; Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infection substantially limits immune function; multiple sclerosis substantially limits neurological function; muscular dystrophy substantially limits neurological function; and major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, and schizophrenia substantially limit brain function.

Comparison to “Most People.” The Regulations state that in determining whether an individual has a substantially limiting impairment, the individual’s ability to perform a major life activity can be compared to that of “most people in the general population.”

Duration of an Impairment’s Limitations in Assessing “Substantially Limits.” The Commission specifically declined to provide for a six-month durational minimum for showing disability. Additionally, the Commission did not set a minimum duration that an impairment’s effects must last in order to be deemed substantially limiting. Impairments that last only a short period of time may be covered if sufficiently severe.

Mitigating Measures. Mitigating measures, other than ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses, cannot be considered in determining whether an individual has a disability. Mitigating measures include medication, medical equipment and devices, prosthetic limbs, low vision devices ( e.g., devices that magnify a visual image), hearing aids, mobility devices, oxygen therapy equipment, use of assistive technology, reasonable accommodations, and learned behavioral or adaptive neurological modifications. In the Final Regulations, the Commission has added psychotherapy, behavioral therapy, and physical therapy to the list of “mitigation measures” that cannot be considered, and notes further that its list is not exhaustive.

Impairments That are Episodic or in Remission. An impairment that is episodic or in remission meets the definition of disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active. This means that chronic impairments with symptoms or effects that are episodic rather than present all the time can be a disability even if the symptoms or effects would substantially limit a major life activity only when the impairment is active. Examples of impairments that may be episodic, include epilepsy, hypertension, asthma, diabetes, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia. An impairment such as cancer that is in remission but may possibly return in a substantially limiting form will also be a disability.

Condition, Manner, or Duration. The Commission inserted the terms “condition, manner, or duration” as concepts that may be relevant in certain cases to show how an individual is substantially limited and included language to illustrate what these terms mean. For example, “condition, manner, or duration” might mean the difficulty or effort required to perform a major life activity, pain experienced when performing a major life activity, the length of time a major life activity can be performed, or the way that an impairment affects the operation of a major bodily function.

Substantially Limited in Working. Since no other major life activity was singled out in the Regulations for elaboration, the Final Regulations do not mention the major life activity of working other than by its inclusion in the list of major life activities. The Regulations address how to analyze the “major life activity of working” only in the appendix, where the Commission retained the original analysis of whether an individual has difficulty performing either a “class or broad range of jobs.”

Record of a Disability. Examples of “record of” disabilities are included in the appendix to the Regulations. For example, the “record of” provision would protect an individual who was treated for cancer ten years ago but who is now deemed by a doctor to be free of cancer, from discrimination based on that prior medical history.

Regarded As. The Final Regulations provide further clarification and explanation of the scope of “regarded as” coverage. Even if coverage is established under the “regarded as” prong, the individual must still establish the other elements of the claim (e.g., that he or she is qualified) and the employer may raise any available defenses. In other words, a finding of “regarded as” coverage is not itself a finding of liability. Notably, an employer may show that an impairment is “transitory and minor” as a defense to “regarded as” coverage.

The Commission added a provision providing that a covered entity is not required to provide a reasonable accommodation to an individual who meets the definition of disability solely under the “regarded as” prong.

Evidence of Disability. The Regulations do not include rules on what type of information an employer may request about the nature of an impairment (e.g., during the interactive process in response to a request for reasonable accommodation). The EEOC noted that it has stated repeatedly in policy documents and technical assistance publications that individuals requesting accommodation must provide certain supporting medical information if the employer requests it, and that the employer is permitted to do so if the disability and/or need for accommodation are not obvious or already known. The ADA Amendments Act does not alter this requirement.

Discrimination Claims By An Individual Without A Disability. The Regulations clarify that there is no basis for a claim that an individual without a disability was subject to discrimination because of his lack of disability, including a claim that an individual with a disability was granted an accommodation that was denied to an individual without a disability.

The EEOC has issued fact sheets that explain the ADAAA, including Questions and Answers on the Final Rule Implementing the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 and Questions and Answers for Small Businesses: The Final Rule Implementing the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.

Article courtesy of Worklaw Network firm Shawe Rosenthal.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.