The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently announced a settlement in a case where it had sued a company for failing to grant a reasonable accommodation to one of its prospective employees who needed the use of a service animal due to his disability. The lawsuit alleged that a Navy veteran suffered from post traumatic stress disorder and that he needed to use a service dog because of his disability. Ultimately, the company refused to hire him because of its “no pets” policy. The EEOC brought a lawsuit alleging that the company discriminated and retaliated against the prospective employee because of his disability. The alleged actions are a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination and retaliation against employees and applicants who suffer from a disability. See EEOC v. CRST International Inc., No. 1:17-cv-00129 (N.D. Iowa).
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a lawsuit alleging that Stanley Black & Decker violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to accommodate a disabled employee who had requested time off of work for doctor’s appointments and treatment related to her cancer. The EEOC’s lawsuit claimed that Black and Decker fired an employee who worked as an inside salesperson after she exceeded her sales goals, because she had “poor attendance.” However, the employee had requested an unpaid leave of absence for doctor’s appointments and treatments for her cancer. However, Black and Decker did not grant the leave and instead used those absences as an excuse to terminate her employment. The Americans with Disabilities Act protects employees from workplace discrimination due to a disability and requires that employers provide a reasonable leave of absence to employees who need such leave as an accommodation. See EEOC v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-02525 (D. Md.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a lawsuit against a rehabilitation and healthcare company, Senior Care Properties, Inc. after the EEOC alleged that the company forced a disabled employee to take unpaid leave and then fired her for taking the leave that it forced her to take. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleges that Katrina Friend suffered from rheumatoid arthritis. As a result of this disability and a delay in her ability to fill her prescription for the disability, she requested four weeks of light duty work. Instead of granting this request for a reasonable accommodation, Harborview forced Friend to take an unpaid leave. It did not offer any other accommodation to Friend. Then, after obligating Friend to take this unpaid leave, Harborview fired Friend because she had exceeded the company’s maximum two-week leave policy. This 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. Senior Care Properties, Inc., No 4:17-cv-00136 (E.D.N.C.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a lawsuit against Whole Foods, in which the EEOC alleges that the company discriminated against a disabled employee by refusing to provide an accommodation and then terminating her employment. Butler, who was a cashier, suffers from polycystic kidney disease, which can cause the growth of cysts in the kidneys and could lead to kidney failure. The lawsuit alleges that Butler required a kidney transplant, which forced her to miss work on two occasions for hospitalization and doctor’s visits. The EEOC claims that Butler informed Whole Foods that she would need time off for treatment, but Whole Foods still terminated her employment for absences. Such alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The ADA prohibits discrimination against employees because of their disability and further requires that employers make reasonable accommodations for disabilities. See EEOC v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., No. 5:17-cv-00494 (W.D.N.C.).
Employer Could Be Required to Provide Leave to Recover from Surgery as a Reasonable Accommodation10/30/2018
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently filed a lawsuit against Spencer’s Gifts, LLC, a novelty gift store, alleging that the company discriminated against one of its employees by refusing to grant her a reasonable leave due to her disability. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleges that the store manager suffered from a disability called Marfan Syndrome. Requiring surgery for her disability, she informed the company in December 2016 that she would need this surgery as well as four to six weeks of leave to recover. The EEOC claims that Spencer’s refused to grant the leave and refused to provide the store manager with a reasonable accommodation. The EEOC further alleges that Spencer’s fired her in January 2017 after her short-term disability benefits were exhausted. Such alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination by an employer against an employee on the basis of the employee’s disability and requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to disabled employees. See EEOC v. Spencer Gifts, LLC, No. 5:18-cv-00155 (W.D.N.C.)
Cloverland Farms Dairy has agreed to pay $75,000 and other equitable relief to resolve a lawsuit that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought against it alleging disability discrimination. The EEOC alleged that the company abruptly stopped accommodating three of its employees who suffered from disabilities. The employees had worked for Cloverland between eight and twenty-two years, and throughout that time Cloverland permitted the disabled employees to use dedicated parking spots near to the building. The EEOC claims that in July 2017, the company mandated that these disabled employees must now park at a lot that was farther away and simultaneously allowed non-disabled employees to take these previously-reserved spots. Employers must make reasonable accommodations for disabled employees under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the ADA also prohibits discrimination against employees because of their disability. See EEOC v. Cloverland Dairy Limited Partnership, No. 1:18-cv-02759 (D. Md.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently filed a lawsuit against a staffing agency, Remedy Intelligent Staffing, and the company where the employee was placed, Lornamead, Inc., for alleged disability discrimination. The EEOC claims that the staffing agency and company refused to provide a reasonable accommodation to the disabled employee, that Lornamead eventually terminated the employee because of his disability, and that the staffing agency failed to place the employee at a new job. The lawsuit alleges that Lornamead hired the employee in June 2013 through the staffing agency, and that he was diagnosed with a disability at some point during his employment. The employee’s disability was a chronic condition that resulted in the growth of multiple cysts in his kidneys. In June 2016, the employee ran a machine that forced him to bend and twist his body continually, which aggravated his kidney condition. The employee requested that Lornamead provide him with a chair, but Lornamead refused to provide him with this reasonable accommodation. The employee then provided Remedy with a doctor’s note explaining that the bending and twisting could make his condition worse. The note also recommended that he refrain from extreme bending, twisting, and lifting, which could cause a cyst rupture. The employee also suggested several reasonable accommodations that would permit him to perform his job duties. Lornamead told Remedy to end his work assignment, which Remedy did. Remedy did not place the employee at another job with a different client. Such alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. See EEOC v. Lornamead, Inc., No. 1:18-cv- 00841 (W.D.N.Y.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity filed a lawsuit against Pulmonary Specialists of Tyler and Sleep Health for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleges that Pulmonary Specialists unlawfully requested that the employees complete a questionnaire related to medical conditions asking if the employees suffered from any of more than 20 different medical conditions, whether they suffered from an impairment or a disability, and whether they had previously had surgeries or a permanent disability rating. At least one employee answered that she had suffered an injury on the job in 1996, which resulted in back surgery and a permanent disability rating. Her ability to perform her job duties as a Billing/Collections Specialist was not impacted, but the company terminated her employment just three days after she completed the questionnaire. Terminating an employee because of their disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act is illegal. See EEOC v. Pulmonary Specialists of Tyler PA , No. 6:18-CV-00338 (E.D. Tex.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a lawsuit with Signature Industrial Services, LLC, in which the EEOC alleged that the company had discriminated against three of its employees who were brothers and suffered from hemophilia, which is a blood disorder. The brothers’ disability did not impact their ability to perform their job duties, but the employer required them to have expensive medicine in case they suffered some type of injury at work that caused bleeding. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that Signature learned that the medication for the brothers could cause a large increase in insurance costs, and Signature directed the brothers’ project manager to fire them. That manager refused to fire the brothers because of their strong work history. However, after their manager stopped working at the plant, Signature ordered the new supervisor to fire them. The lawsuit alleges that the brothers were told they were terminated due to a layoff on July 3, 2013. The lawsuit further claims that no other employees were laid off for the supposed “reduction in force.” Terminating employees due to their disability is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. See EEOC v. Signature Industrial Services, LLC, No. 1:18-cv-70 (E.D. Tex.).
Heritage Home Group, LLC reached an agreement to resolve a lawsuit that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought against it, alleging that the company had discriminated against one of its employees due to his disability. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleges that the employee suffered from diabetes. Due to his diabetes, he had surgery to amputate one of his toes in March 2016. In addition, the employee was diagnosed with peripheral neuropathy. In order to recover, the employee needed to take a leave of absence until June 2016, and he informed Heritage Home Group that he anticipated a return in the first week of June 2016. The lawsuit claims that, instead of allowing this leave, Heritage Home Group sent a letter to the employee dated April 29, 2016 informing him that Heritage Home Group was terminating his employment because he would not be able to work until June. See EEOC v. Heritage Home Group, LLC, No. 5:18-CV-00018 (W.D.N.C.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reached a settlement with M.G. Oil Company d/b/a Happy Jack’s Casino after the EEOC filed a lawsuit in which it claimed that Happy Jack’s discriminated against an employee because of her disability. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that the prospective employee suffered from a neck and back impairment that caused substantial limitations in her lifting, bending, performing manual tasks, sitting, and sleeping. Happy Jacks offered the prospective an employee a job that was contingent on her successfully completing a drug test. The prospective employee had a prescription for hydrocodone to treat pain due to her disability, but she was not given an opportunity to provide information regarding her disability or prescription related to the company’s drug testing. After her non-negative drug test, Happy Jacks informed the prospective employee that it was withdrawing its offer of employment. After receiving this notice, the prospective employee asked Happy Jacks to reconsider because the medication was related to the lawful use of her taking a prescribed medication for her disability. Despite this request, Happy Jacks still refused to hire her. In addition, the EEOC’s Complaint alleged that Happy Jacks had an unlawful policy that required all employees to report all prescription and nonprescription drugs that they take, regardless of their relation to their job duties. See EEOC v. M.G. Oil Company d/b/a Happy Jack's, 4:16-cv-04131 (D.S.D.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit against Walmart for allegedly failing to provide a disabled employee with reassignment to a position in another location after she became disabled. The lawsuit claims that Veronica Resendez, who started working for Walmart in 1999, became disabled. Walmart concluded that the disability prevented Resendez from continuing to work in her current position, Sales Associate, and that she would instead need to work as either a Fitting Room Associate or a People Greeter. Neither of these positions were available at the store where Resendez worked. However, Fitting Room Associate positions were available in another store. The lawsuit further alleges that Walmart maintained a policy wherein it would search for open positions for 90-days only at the store where the employee had been working. Therefore, Walmart never transferred Resendez, despite Resendez informing Walmart that she was willing to work at other stores. Such alleged actions are a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of an employee’s disability. See EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-00170 (D. Me.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reached an agreement with Macy’s to settle a lawsuit in which the EEOC alleged that the company had discriminated against an employee because of her disability. The lawsuit alleged that Macy’s fired its employee after she took just a one-day absence because of an emergency related to her asthma. The lawsuit further claimed that, although Macy’s had a policy permitting absences for reasons related to employees’ disabilities, this particular employee’s request for leave was denied despite needing to be treated in an Emergency Room. The employee was fired about three weeks after the ER visit. See EEOC v. Macy's; No. 17-cv-05959 (N.D. Ill.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a lawsuit in which the EEOC claimed that a company refused to hire a job applicant because of his disability. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleges that a deaf job applicant applied for a warehouse position. However, when the applicant arrived for the interview, the site manager canceled it and told the prospective employee that the interview would be rescheduled when an HR representative and an interpreter could attend the interview. The company, however, did not reschedule the interview. Instead, the site manager sent the prospective employee a text message, which said “we have determined that there is no job we can offer that would be safe for you . . . .” Despite this comment, the company never asked the applicant whether he could perform the essential job duties of a warehouse position with or without a reasonable accommodation. The alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees and prospective employees on the basis of their disability. See EEOC v. Capstone Logistics, LLC, No. 1:17-cv-01980 (D. Md.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit alleging that a company fired several employees after forcing them to complete medical questionnaires and medical examinations, which showed that these employees suffered from disabilities. When the company gave the employees the questionnaires, the employees were already working for the company and had been adequately completing their job. Such alleged activity is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits companies from taking adverse employment actions on the basis of an employee’s disability. See EEOC v. Zachry Construction Corp., No. 1:18-cv-00058 (S.D. Miss.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a lawsuit alleging that a company refused to provide a reasonable accommodation to one its employees who suffered from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, and asthma. The employee requested that the company allow him to work on the ground floor of an office building in which he worked, because the building did not have an elevator. This request was made so that he could avoid the need to walk up and down the stairs. The lawsuit alleged that the company refused this request and then later fired the employee because of his disability. The alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which requires employers to provide their employees with a reasonable accommodation unless such accommodation would create an undue burden. See EEOC v. InsideUp, Inc., No.: 3:17-cv-01961 (S.D. Cal.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reached a settlement of $30,000 with an operator of a Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise to resolve a disability discrimination lawsuit claiming that the company’s owner fired one of its managers in July 2015 after it discovered that she was taking medications that her doctor had prescribed to her to treat her bipolar disorder. The EEOC alleged that the owner used obscene terms in reference to the medications and then forced the manager to flush the medications down a toilet at work. Subsequently, the manager told the owner that she intended to continue taking her prescription medications, and the owner terminated her employment. The alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination against employees on the basis of their disability. See EEOC v. Hester Foods, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-000340 (S.D. Ga.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently filed a lawsuit alleging that Heritage Home Group, LLC denied a reasonable accommodation to one of its employees and subsequently fired the employee because of his disability. The EEOC’s lawsuit claims that a machine operator was diabetic and developed an infection in one of his toes, requiring amputation. After the amputation, the employee was diagnosed with peripheral neuropathy in both of his feet. The lawsuit further alleges that around April 8, 2016, the employee, who was on short-term disability leave, told the company that he needed more time to recover and that he planned to return the first week of June. In response, the company sent a letter to the employee dated April 29, 2016 informing him that he was terminated because he could not return to work until June. The Americans with Disabilities Act requires that companies provide a reasonable accommodation for disabled employees, unless the accommodation would create an undue hardship on the company. See EEOC v. Heritage Home Group, LLC, No. 5:18-cv-00018 (W.D.N.C.).
An Ohio knife manufacturer has been sued by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for allegedly discriminating against an employee due to his disability. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleges that a CNC machine operator suffered an anxiety attack while working for the company. The employee left work because of the anxiety attack, and after learning about the employee’s disability (generalized anxiety disorder), the company asked the employee why he had not disclosed his disability to the company when he was hired. The EEOC further alleges that the company requested a doctor’s note, which was provided, but the employee was fired anyway due to his disability. The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits employers from terminating employees due to disabilities, such as anxiety. See EEOC v. Busse Combat Knife Co., No. 3:18-cv-00144 (N.D. Ohio).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a disability discrimination lawsuit with Pioneer Health Services, Inc. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleges that one of Pioneer’s social workers/therapists became disabled and was forced into hospitalization due to liver failure. The employee requested and was approved for leave for surgery to transplant her liver. When the employee requested additional leave for several weeks to continue recovering from surgery, however, she was denied. The company then fired her after she had exhausted company-approved leave. The lawsuit further claims that the company refused to re-hire the disabled employee several months later for an open social worker/therapist position. See EEOC v. Pioneer Health Services, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-00016 (N.D. Miss.).
|
Categories
All
|