The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently announced that it had settled a lawsuit against Interconnect Cable Technologies Corporation in which the EEOC had alleged that ICTC had discriminated against one of its employees who suffered from a disability.  The EEOC’s lawsuit claimed that ICTC first demoted and then fired its employee who had been hospitalized due to a mental illness from which the employee suffered.  The employee, who suffered from major depressive disorder, was hospitalized for a short time due to her disability.  When she attempted to return to work after this hospitalization, ICTC took away her job duties.  Shortly after that, ICTC demoted the employee and cut her pay.  Eventually, about four months after the hospitalization, ICTC terminated her 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. Interconnect Cable Technologies Corp., No. 8:20-cv-00644 (M.D. Fla.).

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a lawsuit against a technology business service company, Conduent Business Services, LLC, after the EEOC alleged that the company discriminated against a prospective employee due to a disability.  The EEOC’s lawsuit claims that Conduent refused to interview (and hire) a prospective employee who was qualified for the potential job because he was deaf.  He applied for a job with Conduent as a corporate development associate, and Conduent initially showed interest in interviewing him, but then chose not to consider the application after the prospective employee’s job recruitment firm informed Conduent that the prospective employee would need an American Sign Language interpreter.  The EEOC contends that employers must provide interpreters to deaf applicants when they interview for a job.  The alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.  This law makes it illegal to discriminate against employees and applicants because of a disability.  See EEOC v. Conduent Business Services, LLC, No. 2:19-cv-1854 (D.N.J.).

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity recently settled a lawsuit against a company for allegedly discriminating against an employee due to her disability.  The EEOC’s lawsuit claimed that the employee suffered from epilepsy.  The employee suffered a seizure at home after work and called to ask her supervisor for two days off of work to recover from the seizure.  When she returned to work, the company fired the employee and told her that she was fired because her absences occurred during her probationary period.  This alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination against employees due to a disability.  See EEOC v. PML Services, LLC, No. 3:18-cv-00805 (W.D. Wis.).

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a lawsuit against UPS Freight in which the EEOC had alleged that UPS had discriminated against an employee after he had a stroke in 2013.  The employee requested a reasonable accommodation of temporary non-driving work, but UPS would not permit this accommodation.  At the time that the employee made this request, UPS had a policy (which was part of a Collective Bargaining Agreement) of only granting this type of reassignment to drivers whose licenses had been suspended for a non-medical reason.  In 2018, the EEOC was able to obtain an order from the court that this policy violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Last month, the EEOC reached a settlement for the employee’s damages.  The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits employers from discriminating against employees because of their disability.  See EEOC v. UPS Ground Freight, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-02453 (D. Kan.).

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has reached a settlement with St. Vincent Hospital in a lawsuit where the EEOC alleged that the hospital discriminated against an employee because of a disability and then retaliated after this employee complained of discrimination.  The lawsuit claimed that one of St. Vincent Hospital’s employees, Asheley Coriz, was subjected to a hostile work environment by her supervisor because Ms. Coriz is deaf.  The lawsuit further claimed that Ms. Coriz was not granted reasonable accommodations, and that St. Vincent then fired Ms. Coriz after she complained about St. Vincent’s failure to grant her requested reasonable accommodations and her supervisor’s discriminatory conduct.  This alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.  The ADA protects employees from discrimination and retaliation due to a disability.  See EEOC v. St. Vincent Hospital,  No. 1:19-cv-00764 (D.N.M.).

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a class action lawsuit after alleging that the employer implemented an attendance policy that violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.  The EEOC’s lawsuit claimed that the company had an attendance policy with a hard cap on the number of absences employees could have, regardless of whether the absences were due to a disability from which an employee suffered.  If an employee reached the maximum number of absences allowed, then the company would fire the employee even if there was a doctor’s excuse or medical documents to explain the absence.  This alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees because of their disabilities and requires employers to grant reasonable accommodations for disabled employees.  See EEOC v. Wayne Farms, LLC, No. 5:16-cv-01347 (N.D. Ala.).

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a lawsuit alleging that a chain of convenience stores had discriminated against nine disabled employees.  The EEOC’s lawsuit claimed that the company fired a warehouse worker as well as eight other disabled employees who required reasonable accommodations from the company.  The accommodations requested by the impacted individuals included modified work duties or an exception to the company’s rule of terminating employees who missed more than three days of work if they didn’t qualify for other leave.  This alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Companies may not terminate their employees because they suffer from disabilities or request accommodations due to their disabilities.  See EEOC v. Brown-Thompson General Partnership, No. 5:16-cv-1142 (W.D. Okla.).

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently filed a lawsuit against Blue Sky Vision L.L.C., in which the EEOC has alleged that the company forced an employee to respond to an improper medical inquiry and then terminated him because of a perceived disability.  The EEOC’s lawsuit claims that it hired the employee in June 2018 to work as an optometrist.  Three months after it hired him, the employee mentioned to a coworker that he suffered from a disability.  Blue Sky learned about the employee’s medical condition, and it told him that he could no longer work for the company.  In response, this employee complained that Blue Sky’s actions were illegal, so the company postponed the termination of his employment, put the employee on a leave of absence, and subjected him to a medical inquiry into his health conditions, which was not related to his job or his ability to perform his job.  The employee refused to complete the medical inquiry, and Blue Sky terminated his employment in response.  This alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees because of a disability or a perceived disability.  See EEOC v. Blue Sky Vision, LLC, No. 1:20-cv-00285 (W.D. Mich.).    

The EEOC recently filed a lawsuit against electronic manufacturer Interconnect Cable Technology Corporation.  The EEOC’s lawsuit claims that the company discriminated against one of its employees because of her disability.  She had been promoted many times and worked in numerous roles for Interconnect during her 20 years there.  In June 2019, she was hospitalized and also diagnosed with major depressive disorder.  After she returned to work the week after this diagnoses, Interconnect’s Chief Financial Officer stripped her of her job duties, then demoted her shortly after this, and finally fired her just a few months later.  This alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees due to a disability, including mental illnesses.  See EEOC v. Interconnect Cable Technology Corp., No. 20-644 (M.D. Fla.).

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a case against a supplier of automotive parts, Hiatchi Automotive Systems Americas, Inc., in which the EEOC had alleged that the company refused to provide one of its employees with a reasonable accommodation.  The EEOC’s lawsuit claimed that one of Hitchahi’s assembly operators required frequent restroom breaks due to a medical condition from which she suffered.  The employee went through a probationary period with the company and received a good evaluation, which led to a permanent offer from Hitachi.  Around this time, the employee requested the reasonable accommodation of additional restroom breaks (beyond the lunch break and 15-minute breaks that employees were allowed).  Instead of granting the reasonable accommodation, Hitachi rescinded its permanent job offer.  This alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination against employees who suffer from a disability.  See EEOC v. Hitachi Automotive Systems Americas, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-03887 (N.D. Ga.).

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a lawsuit against M&M Limousine, in which the EEOC had alleged that the company refused to hire a qualified individual because of his disability.  The EEOC’s lawsuit claimed that M&M did not hire an applicant because he was deaf.  The Complaint also alleged that the company did not even consider whether the prospective employee could perform the job but informed him that they were not hiring him because he is deaf, even though this applicant met all of the qualifications for the position.  This alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which requires employers and prospective employers to provide reasonable accommodations for disabled employees and prohibits discrimination on the basis of an employee or prospective employee’s disability.  See EEOC v. M&M Limousine, No. 19-CV-4213 (N.D. Ill.).

The EEOC recently settled a lawsuit against American Woodmark Corporation alleging disability discrimination and a failure to provide a reasonable accommodation.  The employee had asked only for two days of unpaid leave in order to see a doctor to treat her disabilities.  Rather than grant this reasonable accommodation, the company gave the employee, who had worked for American Woodmark for 16 years, attendance points.  These points caused the employee to exceed the company’s allowed number of attendance points even though she had provided a doctor’s note and FMLA forms, and the company used this excuse to terminate her employment.  The alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits disability discrimination and requires employers to provide their employees with reasonable accommodations.  See Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Woodmark Corp., No. 5:19-CV-381 (M.D. Ga.).

The EEOC recently settled a lawsuit against Kroger, the national grocery store chain, wherein the EEOC had claimed that Kroger discriminated against an employee because of his disability.  The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that Kroger offered a job as a courtesy clerk to an employee in 2016.  However, during this employee’s job orientation, he requested an accommodation to complete the computer-based segment of the orientation, because he had a vision impairment.  Instead of granting the employee this accommodation, Kroger immediately fired him.  Such alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees because of a disability.  See EEOC v. Kroger Co., No. 1:18-cv-03095 (N.D. Ga.).