The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a lawsuit that it had filed against Olive Garden/GRMI Inc.  The EEOC's lawsuit alleged that Olive Garden discriminated against an applicant due to the applicant's disability.  The applicant used a cane and, during the interview, the GM asked the applicant numerous questions related to his disability including asking what "was wrong" with the applicant, asking how "bad" his disability was, and asking questions about his use of a cane.  Olive Garden ultimately declined to hire the applicant because of his disability and because of information related to his disability that the GM learned through his asking of illegal questions about the applicant's disability.  This alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, which prohibits employers from making hiring decisions on the basis of an applicant's disability.  See U.S. EEOC v. GMRI, Inc. d/b/a Olive Garden, Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-01448-NR (W.D. Pa.).

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a lawsuit against Voyant Beauty, in which the EEOC alleged that the company had terminated an employee because of their disability.  The EEOC's lawsuit claimed that Voyant hired an employee, but, on the first day of her employment, Voyant learned that this employee was deaf.  After learning this, Voyant terminated her employment, despite the new employee being qualified for the job and being able to perform the job with or without an accommodation.  Rather than discussing whether the employee would need any accommodations, Voyant assumed that she could not perform the job and fired her.  Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, which prohibits discrimination against employees due to a disability and which requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to disabled employees who need such accommodations.  See Civil Action No.1:23-cv-014023 (N.D. Ill.).

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has recently filed a lawsuit against a property management company in which the EEOC alleges that the company revoked a job offer that it had made to an applicant after the company learned that the prospective employee suffered from a disability.  The EEOC's lawsuit claims that the company made a job offer to the employee to work as an administrative employee, but then learned that the employee had subsequently been diagnosed with a common form of breast cancer.  The prospective employee's doctor confirmed that she could still perform the job, but she would need limited time off of work each week for treatment.  Instead of discussing this request for a reasonable accommodation with the employee, the company withdrew her job offer.  This alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.  The ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against employees, including those who have not yet started working, due to a disability or a reasonable request for an accommodation related to a disability.  See Case No. 1:24-cv-10370 (D. Mass.)

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently sued a home health care company for terminating an employee because of her pregnancy and a disability.  The EEOC's lawsuit claims that Heartfelt Home Healthcare Services, Inc. terminated one of its scheduling coordinators because she was pregnant and because she suffered from hypertension.  The lawsuit further alleges that the president and vice president told her that she was a "liability to the company" on numerous occasions, and that they terminated her employment after she was treated at the hospital for early contractions.  The termination occurred even though the employee did not have medical restrictions that prevented her from performing her job.  This alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.  Discrimination against an employee because of their sex or because of their pregnancy is illegal.  See U.S. EEOC v. Heartfelt Home Healthcare Services, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-00280-CB (W.D. Pa.). 

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has recently filed a lawsuit against Wal-Mart, alleging that Wal-Mart failed to provide a reasonable accommodation to one of its sales associates and then placed that employee on an indefinite unpaid leave.  The EEOC’s lawsuit claimed that Wal-Mart initially allowed the employee the accommodation of using an electric cart to assist with his job duties, such as stocking shelves.  The employee needed this accommodation due to his disability.  Arbitrarily, after about seven months of permitting the use of the scooter, a new manager told the employee that he could no longer use it.  Wal-mart told the employee that the store’s carts were only for customers, despite permitting its use for months, and informed the employee that he would need to either buy his own electric cart or transfer to the self-checkout host position.  The employee was not physically capable of performing work in the self-checkout position, and he was not able to purchase an electric cart, so Wal-mart sent the employee home on an indefinite leave with no pay.  This alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, which requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to disabled employees.  See Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, Civil Action No.: 1:22-cv-02596 (D.S.C.).

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a lawsuit against a headhunting company, Jivaro Professional Headhunters.  The EEOC's lawsuit claims that the company discriminated against one of its employees, who worked for Jivaro as a senior technical engineer, and then later retaliated against her.  The lawsuit alleged that the employee was hospitalized and fired because of that hospitalization.  In addition, after she filed her EEOC charge, the company retaliated against her by giving prospective employers misleading and negative job reviews and further retaliated by filing a lawsuit against her, because she filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC.  Such actions are prohibited by the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, which prohibits discrimination against an employee due to their disability and which further prohibits retaliation for complaints, including the filing of an EEOC charge, of disability discrimination.  See EEOC v. Jivaro Professional Headhunters, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00461-CWD (D. Idaho).

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a lawsuit that it had filed against a company doing business as Subway 701.  The EEOC had alleged that Subway 701 hired an employee with autism and ADHD who requested reasonable accommodations due to his disabilities.  The requested accommodations included specific instructions for tasks and for somebody to check and make sure he understood the tasks.  Rather than provide these accommodations, however, the EEOC's lawsuit claimed that the company refused to grant the accommodations and then fired the employee after only four shifts because of his disabilities and his accommodation requests.  These alleged actions violate the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, which mandates that employees provide reasonable accommodations to disabled employees.  See EEOC v. RCC Partners, LLC d/b/a Subway 701, Case No. 2:21-cv-01551 (D. Ariz.).

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a lawsuit against senior living community.  The EEOC's lawsuit claimed that the company determined that one of its Certified Nursing Assistants could no longer perform the essential functions of her job because she had a lifting restriction, which resulted from a workplace injury that she suffered.  The employee asked to be placed into one of several other jobs for which she was qualified, but the company refused.  This alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, which requires employers to grant reasonable accommodations to its employees.  See EEOC v. Heart of CarDon, LLC, No. 1:20-cv-00998-JRS-MJD (S.D. Ind.).

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit against a title loan company in which it alleged that the company had subjected an employee racial harassment and then fired her because of her disability.  The lawsuit claims that from August to September 2019, the employee's manager made offensive and discriminatory comments including comments about African American customers, regularly using the n-word, saying that she "hated working with n******," and saying that African Americans "never pay their bills."  The employee reported the comments to two managers and left messages with Human Resources, but nothing was ever done to stop the harassment and HR never returned the calls.  In addition to the racial harassment, the company refused the employee's reasonable request to use crutches or a wheelchair at work while she recovered from a disability and mandated that she not return until she could work with no restrictions whatsoever.  Eventually, instead of allowing her to return to work, the company terminated her employment.  This alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, which prohibit race discrimination and disability discrimination, respectively.  See EEOC v. Community Loans of America and Carolina Title Loans, Inc., No.: 6:22-cv-01000-DCC-JDA (D.S.C.).

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a lawsuit against a company who terminated an employee shortly after they returned from a leave related to a disability.  The EEOC’s lawsuit claimed that employee told his employer, Ranew Management Company, that he suffered from severe depression and needed three weeks off of work, which was recommended by his doctor.  The employer told the employee to take as much time as he needed.  After six weeks of leave, the employee tried to return to work and gave Ranew a return to work note from his doctor.  Instead of allowing him to return, Ranew told him that it could no longer trust him to perform his job and fired him.  This alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of a disability and requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations.  See No. 5:21-CV-00443-MTT (M.D. Ga.).

A trucking and property management company recently settled a lawsuit that the EEOC had filed against it in which the EEOC alleged that the company refused to make reasonable accommodations and then fired two of its employees because of their disabilities.  The lawsuit claimed that Groendyke Transport had a policy to fire employees after they had exhausted their 12 weeks of FMLA leave.  One employee (who had worked for Groendyke for 20 years) needed only one additional week of leave after his 12 weeks of FMLA leave were exhausted, but the company refused this accommodation and terminated his employment.  Such alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of an employee’s disability.  See EEOC v. Groendyke Transport, Inc and McKenzie Property Management, Inc. f/k/a McKenzie Tank Lines, Inc., No. 3:19-cv-02830-RV-EMT (N.D. Fla.).

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a lawsuit against a parts manufacturer.  The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that it hired an employee in May 2017 who had a severe hearing impairment.  She was proficient in American Sign Language but not English, and she communicated almost entirely with ASL.  The employee filed grievances between January 2018 to May 2018 claiming that the company was excluding her from meetings due to her disability.  The Complaint further alleged that, after she brought the complaint, the company disciplined her.  After she was forced to attend a mandatory meeting with no ASL interpreting, she filed a formal request for an interpreter to be present at meetings.  The company denied the request and then terminated her employment.  This alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of an employee’s disability.  See Commission v. Pneuline Supply, Inc., No.: 22-00292 (Dist. Colo.).

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a lawsuit against two car dealerships, which allegedly fired a title clerk, because they feared that she might have cancer.  The employee had missed several days of work because of an abrupt illness, and she also told management that she had been hospitalized and was being tested for cancer.  A day before her planned return to work, the dealerships fired the title clerk, telling her to “focus on her health” and stated that the termination of her employment was not because of her work performance.  This alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of a disability or a perceived disability.  See EEOC v. Cappo Management, No. 2:20-cv-02245 (E.D. Cal.).

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a lawsuit against Dollar Tree, after the EEOC alleged that Dollar Tree discriminated against an applicant because of their disability.  The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that a deaf prospective employee applied to Dollar Tree but was denied the job.  Instead of hiring this applicant, the EEOC alleged that Dollar Tree instead hired applicants with worse qualifications who were not hearing impaired.  This alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination against both employees and applicants on the basis of their disability or requests for reasonable accommodations.  See EEOC v. Dollar Tree Distribution, Inc., No. 3:20-cv-05959 (W.D. Wash.).

Charter Senior Living has settled a lawsuit alleging disability discrimination.  The EEOC’s lawsuit claimed that Charter hired a new employee who passed her pre-employment physical.  This employee worked for Charter for weeks without any issue until Charter learned that she had nerve damage in one of her hands.  After learning of this nerve damage, Charter insisted that the employee complete another physical.  The second physical resulted in a determination that the employee met physical standards, but she was not passed unconditionally because of the nerve damage.  Charter ultimately fired the employee.  This alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of an employee’s disabilities or requests for reasonable accommodations due to a disability.  See EEOC v. Charter Senior Living, LLC, No. 3:21-cv-00708 (N.D. Ohio).

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently filed a lawsuit against a fabrication, coating, and assembly company, Ranew's Management, for allegedly terminating an employee due to his disability and requests for a reasonable accommodation.  The EEOC’s lawsuit claims that Ranew fired one of its employees after he had informed the company that he had been diagnosed with severe depression and asked for three weeks off of work as an accommodation for his disability.  This accommodation request for time off of work was recommended by the employee’s doctor.  The CEO of Ranew told the employee to take as much time as he needed.  The employee tried to return to work with a doctor’s release six weeks later, but the CEO told the employee that he could not trust him to perform his job duties, and he fired the employee.  The alleged conduct would be a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of a disability.  Employers are also obligated to provide reasonable accommodations to disabled employees.  See EEOC v. Ranew's Management Co., No. 5:21-cv-00443 (M.D. Ga.).

The EEOC recently settled a lawsuit against Optimal Solutions & Technologies, Inc. after the EEOC alleged that the company terminated one of its employees after he disclosed a disability.  The EEOC’s lawsuit claimed that one of the senior administrators working at Optimal Solutions told his supervisor that he had a benign brain tumor, and that this brain tumor would require radiation treatment for about six weeks.  The employee also informed his supervisor that the treatments would occur after work and would not impact his job.  Despite this, and despite the employees continued strong work performance, Optimal Solutions terminated his employment just a month after he informed Optimal Solutions of his disability and only one week before his radiation treatment was scheduled to begin.  This alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits employers from firing employees because of a disability or because of their requests for reasonable accommodations due to a disability.  EEOC v. Optimal Solutions & Technologies, No. 8:17-cv-02861 (D. Md.).