The "BRAND NEW" DSM-V -- Prescription For More ADA Suits?

With the recent, long-awaited publication on May 18th of the 900-plus page DSM-V, the so-called "Bible"  of the American Psychiatric Association (its $100,000,000 publishing baby), there has been the usual battle between and among psychiatrists, psychologists and other mental health professionals over its content.  It adds many diagnoses and deletes others.  It renames some ("Gender Idenity Disorder" has become "Gender Dysphoria" with a flick of a pen, or a click of a keyboard).

 

Should "caffeine-withdrawal" be classified a psychiatric disorder?    Should "parental alienation syndrome?"  "Sluggish cognitive tempo?"  "Excoriation" (i.e., skin picking)?

The answers are found below.* 

 

The National Institutes of Mental Health will no longer use the DSM-V's diagnoses in its research projects. Some critics say that it has become a sales manual for the drug companies, and others, such as The Daily Kos, says of the DSM-V:  "Psychiatric junk science based on subjective 'diagnoses' represents a form of medicine that went out in the 20th century in every other part of medicine."

 

So why do we write about it here?  Well, think about it.  With the addition of "caffeine-withdrawal syndrome," will limiting an employee's trip to the coffee machine be a violation of the ADA?  Will every new diagnosis become a court case?

 

The next interesting ADA case is limited only by the imagination of a shrink, or plaintiff's lawyer.

 

*Answers to quiz:  The first and last of the above disorders were included in the DSM-V.  The second and third were not.  Give yourself a point for each correct answer.

 

Texas Businesswoman Of The Year Fired For Performance Reasons -- After She Discloses Breast Cancer

Irrespective of the merits or legitimacy of the performance issue, is there an exployer who has read our blog who cannot critique this action by the company? 

 

Kathleen Mason told her company, Tuesday Morning Corp. (which sells closeout housewares and home décor in 850 stores around the US), of which she was president and CEO, that she had been diagnosed with breast cancer “so they wouldn't be alarmed if she began losing her hair or growing gaunt as a result of treatment.”

 

She was fired a few months later for alleged performance reasons, even though she was the 2010 Women's Chamber of Commerce of Texas Businesswoman of the Year, and even though her board of directors had approved a $50,000 salary raise in 2011, along with stock options. She just sued alleging disability discrimination.

 

The Huffington Post reports that her attorney claims that “the board's attitude toward her began to change soon after [she revealed her condition], with members contacting her subordinates directly. At one point when Mason was wearing a wig ... one board member made a sarcastic comment about how nice her hair looked.”

 

 

Her complaint states that “When you put the board’s actions into chronological context, the motivating factor for the board’s decision to fire her was the fact that it had concern about her future performance because it regarded Kathleen as having a disability (cancer). …  It’s clear that Tuesday Morning’s board overreacted when it learned of Kathleen’s cancer and regarded her as being disabled and wrongfully fired her.”

 

When it comes to disclosure of a disability, is chronology destiny?

 

 

"Top Hats" For A Shy Bladder: A Reasonable Accommodation

A number of people have written about our “Shy Bladder” post, questioning whether it is, indeed, a disability. After all, what life function does it impair? 

One reader who is a sufferer of paruresis wrote:

“As a person who suffers from shy bladder, I can say that it disables me only by causing me to take forever in the restroom. I can't urinate in a public restroom if I know that anyone else is in the room. I have an awful time when my bladder is really full and I have to go into a store restroom. I take 3-4 times as long as any other woman.

I had to undergo random urinalyses when I was in the Navy, and they were a whole lot worse than in the civilian world. In the Navy, the observer actually had to observe. I was watched from start to finish, and it was very unpleasant. I always had to have the observer turn on the faucet to help me.

I can understand the person being unable to urinate with anyone else in the room, but I think the employer can overcome the problem. Medical providers have what they call "top hats" -- plastic things that sit across the toilet and collect urine. The employer can rig the toilet with one of these. Then, they can pat down the person before leaving her to provide the sample. It'd be more time-consuming, but it can be done.”

 So according to our reading of our reader’s comment, even if “shy bladder” is not a disability, nonetheless there is still an easy way to accommodate a person -- a top hat! - so there should never be an issue. 

   

How Does The ADA Apply To Persons With Cancer, Diabetes, Epilepsy or Intellectual Disabilities?

In accordance with its Strategic Enforcement Plan ("SEP"), the EEOC is addressing these issues in a new Question and Answer Series. Both employers (and their HR advisors) and employees can benefit from reading this.  See: http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/disability.cfm.

 

The EEOC Chairwoman states that "Nearly 34 million Americans have been diagnosed with cancer, diabetes, or epilepsy, and more than 2 million have an intellectual disability.  Many of them are looking for jobs or are already in the workplace.  While there is a considerable amount of general information available about the ADA, the EEOC often is asked questions about how the ADA applies to these conditions."

 

The EEOC press release describes these documents as “ reflect[ing] the changes to the definition of disability made by the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) that make it easier to conclude that individuals with a wide range of impairments, including cancer, diabetes, epilepsy, and intellectual disabilities, are protected by the ADA. Each of the documents also answers questions about topics such as: when an employer may obtain medical information from applicants and employees; what types of reasonable accommodations individuals with these particular disabilities might need; how an employer should handle safety concerns; and what an employer should do to prevent and correct disability-based harassment.”

 

First GINA Suit By The EEOC Quickly Settled For $50,000

The first lawsuit ever filed by the EEOC alleging genetic discrimination under GINA has been settled, and the allegations in the suit nicely illustrate the requirements of GINA (or at least what the EEOC views as its requirements). GINA, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, has been around since 2009 but it is widely misunderstood, if understood at all, and there has been little court precedent.

GINA makes it illegal to discriminate against employees or job applicants because of genetic information, which includes family medical history, and restricts employers from requesting, requiring or purchasing such information.

The EEOC alleged in the Oklahoma federal court that the employer refused to hire a woman who had been given an offer of a permanent position as a memo clerk because tests it had conducted concluded that she had carpal tunnel syndrome (“CTS”).

The company had sent her to an outside laboratory for a drug test and physical, and there she had to fill out a questionnaire disclosing the existence of numerous listed disorders in her family medical history. According to the EEOC, “[t]he questionnaire asked about the existence of heart disease, hypertension, cancer, tuberculosis, diabetes, arthritis and ‘mental disorders’ in her family. [She] was then subjected to medical testing, from which the examiner concluded that further evaluation was needed to determine whether [she] suffered from carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS).” 

Although her own doctor found that she did not have CTS, her offer was revoked because the company’s outside lab indicated otherwise.

 The lawsuit therefore claimed a violation of both GINA (since the company asked for her family medical history), as well as the ADA (because the company perceived the applicant as having CTS).  The company settled immediately for $50,000.

An EEOC attorney said 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. …”

We will be seeing more of GINA as the EEOC zeros in on it.  

 

Nurse Denied Employment By Rehab Center Because Kidney Failure Prevented Urine Test

Well, it’s official – at least in our reckoning: the EEOC is, in fact, targeting health care facilities for alleged ADA violations, as we have been claiming for awhile.  

 

In December we repeated our warning that the EEOC is, perhaps, out to make a clear point about the ADA by focusing on companies that service the disabled, or maybe it is just good PR to allege disability discrimination in the health care field.  Be it a phlebotomist with a knee injury, or a doctor with epilepsy -- the EEOC gets good mileage out of skewering hospitals, rehab centers, or clinics.   

 

Just yesterday the EEOC sued The Fort Worth Center of Rehabilitation alleging that it made a job offer to a certified nurse assistant, contingent upon passing a drug screen. The applicant said that because of kidney failure, she could not do a urine-based screen, and her request for a reasonable accommodation, i.e., a different type of drug test, was rejected, and her offer was revoked.

 

Apparently there was no “undue burden” to administer another test since one or more were available. The EEOC said that: "This employer could have accommodated [the applicant’s] disability in several different ways. For example, blood or hair screens are drug tests that do not require a urinalysis."

 

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports that the Center of Rehabilitation“offers inpatient treatment for people dealing with amputations, joint replacements, postsurgical complications, lung and heart conditions, and uncontrolled diabetes. … it also works with people dealing with strokes and multiple sclerosis.”

 

As we said in March, it remains a mystery how a company whose purpose is to help those with disabilities can turn around and fail to accommodate disabled employees, knowing full well that EEOC is carefully watching. Can it be that they know their business well enough but do not know the law?

 

Informative Article On Pregnancy Discrimination in the Concord Monitor

 

An excellent overview of the effects of pregnancy discrimination on female employees, as well as on their entire families, can be found in a piece by Jeremy Blackman in the Concord Monitor (New Hampshire). 

He uses a recently filed lawsuit to describe the relevant law, national statistics, the effects on employers, and the fact that such discrimination is “not just a women’s issue, it’s a family issue, because so many women are integral parts of the financial structure of a family,” in the words of a plaintiff’s lawyer in NH.

It is recommended reading.

 

$240,000,000 Jury Verdict For Exploiting Disabled Workers Is Largest In EEOC History

Intellectually disabled workers at Henry's Turkey Service in Iowa were paid only $65 dollars per month eviscerating turkeys on an assembly line, we posted last September.  In an ADA case brought by the EEOC, an expert witness said that the company exploited the workers because they had intellectual disabilities, and simply did not know better.  She stated that the employer’s conduct "including acts of deliberate misrepresentation" about wages and expenditures, deprived the workers of "economic independence and self-sufficiency." The company "took advantage of the workers ... knowing that they would not likely be discovered because the workers were disabled."

In addition to the discriminatory pay practices, the EEOC claimed that the disabled workers were abused verbally and physically, had their freedom unnecessarily restricted, were subject to harsh punishments, required to live collectively in substandard living conditions, and received inadequate health care.

The EEOC has frequently said, “Protecting vulnerable workers from disparate pay, harassment, and other discriminatory policies is one of the priorities identified in the EEOC's Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP).

Last year the court found that the workers, some of whom had performed the work for over 25 years, were the victims of wage discrimination, and ordered the company to pay them lawful wages totaling $1.3 million.

The court left for trial issues of hostile workplace, and the jury has now slammed Henry’s for $240,000,000 based upon disability-based harassment and discrimination -- the largest verdict in EEOC history. 

The EEOC was exultant. "These men suffered isolation and exploitation for many years, while their employer cruelly consumed the fruits of their labor," said one EEOC lawyer. Another said that "This historic verdict marks one of the EEOC's finest moments in its ongoing efforts to combat employment discrimination, especially discrimination against vulnerable and historically underserved populations.”

 

Hospital Refuses Request Of Epileptic Doctor For An Accommodation And Fires Her

We have keyed in a lot lately on the EEOC’s targeting of health care providers for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) -- perhaps it is the way that such lawsuits play to the public, with employers dedicated to helping the sick and disabled firing disabled employees.  

A new suit by the EEOC alleges that a Florida hospital violated the ADA by denying the request of a doctor with epilepsy for the accommodation of a schedule change.

The complaint charged that the doctor “suffered fatigue that led to recurring epileptic seizures as a result of being required to regularly work 9-1/2 to 12 hours a day.  … [she] was hired with the understanding that she would not be required to exceed an eight-hour work day. … [her] job duties included assisting and attending to patients, [and d]epending on the number of surgeries in a day, her schedule could start as early as 5 a.m. and end about 5 p.m.”    

Health care providers must be extra vigilant when it comes to disabled employees – the EEOC may be looking!  

 

Read: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/04/23/3360557/discrimination-suit-filed-against.html#storylink=cpy

 

 

Was This Company Really Going To Force A Pregnant, Disabled Employee To Carry Live Explosives?

A Nevada engineering company, which the EEOC accused of requiring a pregnant employee to be certified to carry live ammunition and explosives, has -- surprise! -- just settled this case of pregnancy and disability discrimination for $70,000. 

 

  The employee was a pregnant and disabled technical assistant who was employed, along with her husband, at the Hawthorne Army Depot.  The EEOC alleged that:

 

1.  A manager made derogatory remarks to her and denied her request for an accommodation -- to move her office closer to the restroom because of her severe nausea and vomiting.  

 

2.  The company changed her job description while she was out on pregnancy leave, to require that she be certified to carry live ammunition and explosives, and then fired her.

 

3.  The company demoted her husband, and fired him for complaining of his wife's treatment and participating in the EEOC investigation of his wife's case.

 

The EEOC reiterated in its press release that ADA and pregnancy-related limitations comprise one of the six national priorities identified in its Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP).

 

"Can A Chef Who Is Allergic To Food Be Accommodated In A Restaurant?" A Reader Thinks It Through Logically (Big Mistake!)

One of our readers found out that logic does not always work in analyzing a legal issue.   We reported a couple days ago that a chef who was allergic to peanuts was found to have a disability and we asked: "can a chef who is allergic to food be accommodated in a restaurant?"

Our intrepid reader, an experienced HR person, decided to work through this problem to arrive at a logical answer.   In fact, she did an admirable job of weighing the facts and law, and arriving at a logical answer, but her answer differed from the court's.   Here's her analysis:

 

"Oh wow,
Let me take a stab at this one. I think in this day and age almost anything is achievable in terms of accommodation of employees. Considering how severe some reactions from peanut allergies can be, the question that I ask myself is how many measures will needed to be put in place in order to ensure that the chef is never exposed to peanuts that may be handled or prepared in the restaurant. This might be a case of having the kitchen separated into two sections -- one that has peanuts and the other that does not. This might mean a completely different staff complement, from section to section. The law speaks to “reasonable” accommodation by an employer, and if the costs of insulating the chef surpass the margins of the restaurant, then termination as a result of incapacity may need to occur.

There is an additional risk in terms of occupational health and safety in that the chef would be stepping into an area that contains a substance that could potentially harm him every day; how is this going to be dealt with? Another issue I can see is that this will to a certain degree also affect the chef's performance as he will no longer be able to prepare any meals that contain nuts or peanuts, so he will have to rely heavily on someone else to prepare whatever items need to be infused into his meals -- what if the item is substandard, who is to blame then?

Having zero kitchen experience, except the fact that I waitered as a student, there appears to be too many moving parts in order to make the environment reasonably safe. A termination of employment, though harsh, may be the most reasonable solution."

 

 

Sounds logical and "reasonable" -- but wrong, according to the court.

 

 

Insomnia Not A Disability: Did Not Substantially Limit Any Of Lawyer's Major Life Activities

 

If insomnia is a disability, what major life activity does it substantially limit?   If it does not limit daytime activities, can it be a disability if it limits only the major life activity of sleep?  Is this merely tautological?   A new decision awaits our perusal.   

 

A lawyer suffered flu-like symptoms, a severe earache and difficulty falling asleep. Her doctor told her that her lab tests were normal but that she was suffering from “fatigue” or “sleep deprivation.” He prescribed: “Return to full duty with hour restriction to 8 hours per day.” Another doctor ultimately diagnosed her with insomnia, “both difficulty falling asleep and staying asleep,” but placed no restrictions on her ability to work.

 

When she was medically cleared to return to work without restrictions, she requested as an accommodation five-hour work days in the office, but her supervisors denied this request, finding that the restriction would have the effect of preventing Anderson from performing the essential functions of her position. 

 

 

She was fired because the company determined that she had a history of untrustworthy, insubordinate, and manipulative behavior, which had been long documented.  She contended that the company failed to accommodate and fired her because of her disability.

 

 

The Appeals Court held that “the evidence simply does not support the conclusion that she was ‘substantially impaired’ at the time [the company] terminated her employment."   The trial court had supported this conclusion when it stated that "[she] does not contend that her daytime functioning was significantly impaired by her sleep disorder; she argues only that her major life activity of sleep was impaired. … When viewed as a whole, the medical opinions provided by Anderson’s doctors and her own claims fail to establish that Anderson was substantially limited in any major life activity.”

 

 

So the conclusion was that she conceded that her insomnia did not significantly impair any daytime activities, and that the medical evidence indicated that "the major life activity of sleep"  was not impaired.   There may not be any significant precedent here, but the review of the law and the facts that the courts did is instructive.

 

 

 

 

 

Can An "Essential" Job Function Under The ADA Be One That Is Rarely Performed?

In a potentially far reaching decision, a trucking depot manager's sudden inability to drive a truck due to an eye injury, despite being a rare job requirement, made the employee unable to perform an “essential” function of the job under the ADA, and therefore justified his termination.

 

Plaintiff was a Location General Manager of a depot for a company that delivers frozen food to end-user customers at home or work who “excelled in this position.” Although he rarely was required to drive a truck, his written job description nonetheless stated that a Manager “[m]ust meet the Federal Department of Transportation eligibility requirements, including appropriate driver’s license and corresponding medical certification as a condition of employment for this position.”

 

In 2008 he suffered a severe eye injury, and was fired because he failed to obtain medical clearance to be a driver.  Federal law provides that “Any driver whose ability to perform his/her normal duties has been impaired by a physical or mental injury” must be “medically examined and certified.”  

 

The manager contended that driving a truck was not an essential function of his job but a very rare one, and noted that he ran the company depot as well as before for nine months after his eye injury without having to drive a truck.

 

A federal court disagreed, stating that “assuming, without deciding, that he was disabled, he was not qualified to perform an essential function of his job.”  Despite plaintiff’s argument that in actuality he rarely was required to drive, the Court found that his “specific personal experience is of no consequence in the essential functions equation,” but, rather, “it is the written job description, the employer’s judgment, and the experience and expectations of all [Managers] generally [that] establish the essential functions of the job.”    

 

Counsel for the company said that “The fact plaintiff was fortunate enough to not have to drive during the 15 months preceding his termination did not make his ability to drive any less essential.”

 

This decision is an interesting push back by a relatively conservative court, with interesting possible consequences.  Should or can an employer write up a very broad job description for a particular position or one that encompasses every possible task, no matter how small or insignificant, in an effort to make every such task "essential?"  This decision might be an inducement to employers to do that, it would seem.  If plaintiff did not have to drive for 15 months, but the company's claim was that in an emergency he would have to, is there any job function that would not fit that criteria?  

 

 

 

Hearing-Impaired Lawyer Addresses Our Blog Post and Discrimination By Those With Hearing

Our recent post about hearing impairment and the ADA drew the following email from a hearing-impaired lawyer:   

 

“Only the hearing impaired and some doctors actually believe hearing impairment is a disability. Even lawyers almost unanimously think the hearing impaired are (1) cognitively impaired, (2) lying, (3) not trying hard enough, and (4) crazy.  

 

Saying one needs accommodation almost uniformly makes people (1) contemptuous, and (2) angry. For some reason, virtually all hearing people seem to think that one is pretending that there is something wrong with their voices. They angrily tell one to listen harder, to get one's hearing aid adjusted, or, perhaps best, to get one's ears cleaned. Lawyers tell us we have to expect not to work if we're going to act this way--or best, "rather than whine, all the hearing impaired lawyers should get together and give each other work."

 

Many of us were born this way. We hardly know what we're not hearing even when we can hear sound drop out and we watch lips move silently at the other end of a conference table or across the court room or at the grocery store checkout.

 

You can imagine how well we network -- and give each other work ....”

 

Three New Cases On Hearing Impairment And The ADA

Hearing impairment has garnered some attention these days as it relates to employment discrimination under the ADA.  Yesterday we wrote about a new EEOC lawsuit on behalf of a hearing-impaired employee who was not given the accommodation of an American Sign Language interpreter.  

The EEOC also announced a new suit against Toys "R" Us on behalf of a deaf applicant who the company refused to accommodate by providing an interpreter and then failed to hire. An EEOC attorney repeated the EEOC mantra that “It's not only bad business to forgo hiring a qualified  employee simply because of fears, biases or stereotypes against people with disabilities, it's also a violation of the law."    

Now comes news that a federal court in Pennyslvania has ruled that deafness in one ear does not constitute a disability under the ADA.  Plaintiff claimed that she "became totally deaf in one ear and had balance problems due to surgery removing a brain tumor. ... [and] was able to continue performing her job functions without accommodation, but had difficulty concentrating."

 

The Court said that the plaintiff “testified that her deafness in her left ear was not a distraction ... and she did not mention any specific instances where her hearing loss caused a problem other than that she 'didn’t hear some things.'”  Therefore, this hearing impairment in one ear was not a disability under the ADA, even under the expanded ADA Amendments Act.

 

Is this evidence of a new foray by the EEOC and plaintiffs into employment discrimination on the basis of hearing impairment?

 

 

Company Whose Motto is "Making the Difference for Individuals with Special Needs" Refuses To Accommodate Deaf Employee

The EEOC has just sued a California branch of a national non-profit organization, Placer ARC, for refusing to accommodate a hearing-impaired employee by providing an American Sign Language interpreter – which another branch of ARC had done for three years. The complaint alleged that she was “treated [] so poorly that she felt she had no choice but to resign.”  ARC provides independent living services to people with developmental disabilities.

 

The employee, while fluent in American Sign Language, had difficulty following mandatory daily staff meetings conducted in English, but her supervisors refused to accommodate her need for such an interpreter and forced her to communicate almost exclusively in English. The complaint alleges that she spent three years at a different branch of ARC and that with the aid of an interpreter at training sessions and mandatory staff meetings she did high-quality work.

 

 

The web site for Placer ARC notes that it’s “value statement” is that it “invests in the lives of individuals with special needs because every life has value.” Its “mission statement” states that “It is our guiding belief that every individual with an intellectual or developmental disability has an intrinsic yet often unrealized value in their communities. In representing this population that has been historically underserved, Placer ARC is passionately and steadfastly dedicated to the support, education, and well-being of these individuals.”    

 

 

So why were they tone-deaf to the obvious needs of a hearing-impaired employee for whom they had previously provided the necessary accommodation?  Were they trying to attract the EEOC’s attention?

 

Bell's Palsy Sufferer Fired Because Employer Believed That She Had A Stroke

We decided to blog about every EEOC disability discrimination case against health care companies so that the industry gets the message that it is being targeted.   

The latest:  Dependable Health Services, Inc., a Texas company which provides contract workers to the military, has settled a disability discrimination case for $40,000.  The EEOC alleged that an employee was hospitalized for stroke-like symptoms, and when she returned she was fired.  Apparently, she “experience[ed] temporary facial paralysis likely caused by Bell's palsy,” but even after she was medically cleared to return to work she was fired “because management officials believed she had suffered a stroke (emphasis added)."  

 

We have heard this before from the EEOC when it publicizes the settlement of such cases involving perception of disability, and employers should read it carefully:  

"In this case an employee suffered financially because an employer misjudged her condition and her ability to work. …  [E]mployers should not make decisions based on perceptions about someone's supposed impairment. This case should remind all employers that the ADA requires employers to make an individualized assessment about an applicant or employee's ability to do the job instead of acting out of speculative fears or biases (emphasis added)."  (From the EEOC trial attorney).

 

Health Center Fires Employee With Breast Cancer -- Pays $200,000 To Settle

It remains a mystery how a company whose purpose is to help those with disabilities can turn around and fail to accommodate disabled employees.  We asked on September 28, 2012, “Can it be that they know their business well enough but do not know the law?”

 

We were reminded of this when we learned that the Regional Mental Health Center in Indiana, which operates more than a dozen facilities that offer emergency mental health services, mental illness treatment and alcohol treatment has just settled an EEOC lawsuit for $200,000 in which the EEOC accused it of firing an employee who requested leave for breast cancer treatment.

 

 

The EEOC must be targeting healthcare facilities as being easy marks for such blatant disability discrimination.

 

The EEOC Will Sue You If You Fire A Pregnant Employee Claiming Its Because Of "Potential Harm To The Baby."

The EEOC is serious about pursuing discrimination cases filed under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) – very serious -- especially if you fire a pregnant employee because of outdated myths or stereotypes or couched in the language of safety and health   That is, you cannot claim that disparate treatment of pregnant employees is justified by concern for the unborn child. We have repeatedly issued this warning, and have cited new case filings or settlements to support our concerns.

Take this seriously because the EEOC has made obtaining not just monetary damages but also “targeted, equitable relief” – such as all sorts of injunctions -- one of its top priorities, as noted in its Strategic Enforcement Plan for Fiscal Years 2012-2016. This means that you could be  scrutinized closely by the EEOC and/or the Court for years.  

Last November we did a post about an employer who “could not allow [the pregnant employee] to continue to work as a housekeeper because of the potential harm to the development of her baby.” We also wrote that the EEOC had announced the settlement of a pregnancy discrimination case in Mississippi where a pregnant female employee at a bar was fired without warning and without prior disciplinary action because, as it was told to her, "The baby is taking its toll on you."  And in J's Seafood Restaurant of Panama City, Florida two servers were fired because “their pregnancies caused them to be a liability to the company.”

The EEOC just today announced that it has chalked up another such settlement with the owner of a Michigan Comfort Inn, who has agreed to pay $2,500 in back pay and $25,000 in compensatory and punitive damages after it fired a pregnant employee because, as the EEOC said, “it could not  allow the employee to continue to work as a housekeeper because of the potential harm to the development of her baby.”  

 

Point 1do not presume to know what’s best for a pregnant employee or use as an excuse for firing your purported concern for her health or the health of the fetus. It is against the law.

Point 2 – it is not only against the law and you may be liable for substantial money damages, but as this new Comfort Inn settlement shows, the employer will be subject to a permanent  injunction (remember the EEOC’s Strategic Plan about “targeted, equitable relief?”) which, among other things, restrains the company from discriminating against an employee due to her  pregnancy or requiring a pregnant employee to provide medical documents that  releases her to work; requires that employer to provide sex and pregnancy discrimination training to all employees; requires the drafting of a new employee policy regarding sex and pregnancy discrimination and the posting of a notice regarding the lawsuit for all employees; and requires the company report to the EEOC for four years.  

An EEOC spokesperson said previously that "Employers have a duty to know the law and to follow it. Women have the right to work, including during pregnancy. The EEOC will continue to use appropriate means to protect this right."    They really mean it.

 

EEOC Settles Yet Another "Failure To Accommodate" Disability Discrimination Lawsuit

Just yesterday we wrote about an EEOC press release that it had settled for $92,500 a disability discrimination lawsuit on behalf of a woman with Crohn’s disease whose employer refused to make the “reasonable accommodation” of providing her with an additional day of medical leave and instead fired her pursuant to a company attendance policy. 

 

A very similar case was reported to be settled by the EEOC today, this time involving a claim that the company illegally and unreasonably denied an employee who had suffered a stroke the reasonable accommodation of additional leave time required by her disability.  The EEOC, yet again, charged that the company, instead of “granting a modest extension of leave as a reasonable accommodation,” fired the employee.  Today’s settlement was for $50,000.

 

An EEOC attorney said that "The EEOC brought this lawsuit because the company was unwilling to be flexible and reasonable in considering [the employee’s] request for an extended leave period. … Federal law gives employees with disabilities, like [the employee], a means to continue their employment with the benefit of an accommodation."

 

Seems that the EEOC is either clearing its inventory of these types of “failure to accommodate” cases, or, more likely, it has many of them and has been targeting companies which are not “flexible and reasonable in considering [an employee’s] request for an extended leave period.”     

 

 

EEOC Settles Case of Employee With Crohn's Disease Fired For Asking For An Additional Day Of Medical Leave

The EEOC announced today the settlement for $92,500 of a disability discrimination lawsuit against University of Maryland Faculty Physicians, Inc.

The complaint claimed that an employee with Crohn's disease whose job included answering phone calls and scheduling appointments, was undergoing medical treatment and couldn’t work for two weeks, and when she asked for one more day of medical leave she was fired.

The EEOC contended that providing her with the additional day of leave was a reasonable accommodation, and her firing pursuant to a company attendance policy violated  the ADA and its amendments (the “ADAAA”), “because it did not provide for exceptions or modifications to the attendance policy as a reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities.”

The District Director of the EEOC stated that "It is not only a good business practice to provide reasonable and inexpensive accommodations that allow employees with disabilities to remain employed, it is required by federal law."

 

You Cannot Fire A Pregnant Employee Because "The Baby Is Taking Its Toll On You"

In November we blogged about the impermissibility of firing a pregnant employee because the employer “could not allow her to continue to work as a housekeeper because of the potential harm to the development of her baby.” We quoted an EEOC attorney who said that "Employers may not bar pregnant employees from work because of outdated myths or stereotypes.”   That is, you cannot claim that disparate treatment of pregnant employees is justified by concern for the unborn child. 

 

The EEOC has just announced the settlement of a pregnancy discrimination case in Mississippi  which alleged that a four months' pregnant female employee at a bar was fired without warning and without prior disciplinary action because, as it was told to her, "The baby is taking its toll on you."  The employee was under no medical or working restrictions when she was fired.

 

This time the EEOC spokesperson said emphatically that "Employers have a duty to know the law and to follow it. Women have the right to work, including during pregnancy. The EEOC will continue to use appropriate means to protect this right."

 

The EEOC is targeting pregnancy discrimination.   Take heed.

 

 

Can A One-Arm Security Officer Perform His Job Duties? The EEOC Thinks So

We have been cautioning employers recently that the EEOC has been targeting “fears, myths and stereotypes” in hiring and firing   Now, the EEOC has just announced that it has filed another such suit -- against  a security company which fired a one-arm guard.  

 

“The ADA requires that people with disabilities be judged on their ability to perform the essential functions of the job -- not on stereotypes or appearances (emphasis added).”   This from an EEOC attorney upon the filing of a new ADA suit against a Florida security firm for firing an employee with one arm because he failed to wear his prosthetic arm.  The employee was hired to drive around a community association in a security vehicle. 

 

Apparently the employee failed to wear his prosthetic arm on his first day at work, which caused the president of the community association to complain that the security firm "was a joke for sending them a one-arm security officer."  The company removed him from his position immediately, and when he filed his charge of discrimination the company fired him.

 

The EEOC contends that the employee did not need his prosthetic arm to perform his job, and that his employer never directed him to wear it.  The EEOC attorney further noted that “Customer complaints about an employee's appearance created by his disability are not a legitimate reason to terminate him."

 

As we shouted out on January 10th:   Employers beware!  Do Not Refuse To Hire, and Don't Fire Qualified Employees Based on Fears, Myths or Stereotypes!     

 

 

EEOC Settles Two Disability Discrimination Suits

The EEOC announced today that it had settled disability discrimination lawsuits against Kintetsu International Express (for $77,500) and D.O.E. Technologies, Inc. and a related company, doeLegal, LLC (for $130,000).  

In the first case, the EEOC claimed that the employer ridiculed and disparaged an employee who had malignant rheumatoid arthritis and who walked with a limp.  

In the second case, the EEOC claimed that a sales representative with unilateral conductive hearing loss was denied reasonable accommodation by the employer, to whom he asked to be  allowed to telecommute or to work in a quiet area. 

 

EEOC attorneys said of the two settlements, respectively, that "Employees with disabilities deserve the same respect on the job as any other productive worker,” and that "It's not only good business sense for employers to make simple and inexpensive modifications to the workplace for a qualified employee with a disability - such as allowing sales calls to be made in a quiet room or permitting telecommuting for certain jobs - but federal law requires that they make a good-faith effort to do so."

 

Netflix Settles Disability Discrimination Lawsuit for $795,000

The National Association of the Deaf had sued Netflix under the Americans with Disabilities Act because it claimed that the Internet was a place of public accommodation and close captioning was necessary to insure that deaf individuals had equal access to the services. The consent decree entered between the parties provides that in addition to paying counsel and monitoring fees in the amount of $795,000, Netflix will agree to insure that all of its streaming movies are close captioned by 2014. 

 

Although this happens to be a very large settlement, which is slightly unusual in cases of this kind, any employer who operates a place of public accommodation should be concerned about complying with the accessibility requirements set forth in Title III of the ADA.

 

There are plaintiffs, like the ones in the Netflix case who are advocacy organizations, but there are probably more who are what I would term "professional plaintiffs."  These individuals simply go to establishments who do not have the proper access and file suit. 

 

I had a client who got sued by one of these professional plaintiffs who had filed 90 ADA lawsuits against a variety of establishments prior to the one I was defending. Those cases are largely filed by the same attorney and usually settle relatively quickly for an agreement to make repairs and pay counsel fees.  When you figure that settlements can range in the neighborhood of $5000 to $20,000 for case where very little legal work is involved, you can see what a lucrative business this is for both the attorneys and the plaintiffs.

 

The bottom line is employers need to insure that they are complying with all of the accessibility requirements which include by way of example, permitting the use of service animals. (See our 3/29/12 post "So a Man With a Horse Walks into a Bar."  The federal government has issued a very detailed technical compliance manual that can provide some guidance, but employers are also advised to consult with qualified architects and counsel to insure compliance.

Can A Person Who Is Deaf Be A Lifeguard?

Is hearing an essential element of being a liefguard?  Put another way, is an otherwise qualified lifeguard unable to perform the esential job duties because he is deaf? 

This is an interesting question (and real case) addressed by lawyer Mindy Chapman in her article in Business Management Daily of January 24, 2013.  We recommend it! 

 

New Decision On The Interplay of the FMLA and the ADA

There’s an interesting new decision from the federal court in Pennsylvania which looks to the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) in seeking to interpret the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”).  

FMLA leave is designed to allow an employee to address family medical issues, and in this case the issue was whether the employee was entitled to such leave in order to find  new daycare for her autistic daughter who has significant developmental disorders and physical impairments. 

My distinguished colleague, Aaron Weems, addresses this new decision and its implications in an article in the Fox Rothschild Pennsylvania Family Law blog which can be found at:     

 

Employer Pays $50,000 After Firing Employee For Taking Legally-Prescribed Bipolar Medication

Way back in September we cautioned employers not to fire employees for taking legally prescribed meds, and cited a case where this was the employer's policy and practice.  The EEOC has just announced a $50,000 settlement in a case brought on behalf of a lab technician who suffered an adverse reaction at work to medications prescribed to treat her bipolar disorder.  She was fired when the drug test that her employer forced her to take revealed her legally-prescribed medications.  

 

The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of a disability as well as a “perceived disability,” and in this case the employer must have fired her because of her perceived “disability” since an EEOC attorney stated that “Making employment decisions on the basis of stereotypical assumptions about disability-based medications is one of the problems the ADA was designed to combat."

 

Health Care Industry Targeted Again By EEOC: Employer Refused Asthmatic Nurse's Request To Be Excused From Supervising Smokers

Just last week we repeated our warning that the EEOC is targeting disability discrimination in the health care industry. Maybe it is to make a clear point that even companies that service the disabled can discriminate.  Or maybe alleged disability discrimination in the health care field seems so egregious that the EEOC is engaging in good public relations.  

 

Whatever the reason, the EEOC shows no sign of letting up.  It just issued a press release that, once again, it is suing a nursing home -- in Greensboro, N.C. – for alleged refusal to accommodate a nursing assistant with asthma and subsequently firing her because of her disability.  

 

In January 2010, the employer began to require all nursing assistants to supervise residents’ scheduled smoking breaks.  Plaintiff, however, found that her asthma was aggravated by cigarette smoke when she performed this task and made repeated complaints about this to her supervisors.  When she suffered a severe asthma attack, she brought a doctor’s note and requested to be excused from this task.  Her request was denied and she was fired.

 

Employers should know that they must seek to accommodate employees with disabilities by engaging in discussions about what might be a reasonable accommodation. “Reasonable” is the key word – employers do not have to suffer undue hardship in order to effectuate such an accommodation.   As an EEOC attorney put it in this case:  "Employers have a duty to  work with employees who request reasonable accommodations based on a  disability. The EEOC will vigorously prosecute cases where the employer refuses to provide a reasonable accommodation that would  enable a person to perform his or her job."

 

Unless our plaintiff in this case was the only available person to supervise smokers, which seems unlikely, her request to be relieved from this task does not seem unreasonable nor unduly burdensome.

  

EEOC Continues To Target Health Care Industry for ADA Violations

Once again, the EEOC has gone after a nursing and rehabilitation center for disability discrimination, this time in North Carolina.  We predicted on October 1st that the EEOC would be targeting the health care industry for violating the ADA, and our prediction has been coming true.   Employers be warned!

 

This new complaint alleges that a woman hired as a cook was later diagnosed with breast cancer. She informed her supervisor of her diagnosis, and was required to take 4 to 6 weeks of medical leave so that she could undergo surgery.  Her doctor later submitted a note that she needed to take an additional month’s leave due to her medical condition, but she was denied this additional leave and was terminated for failing to report to work.

 

An EEOC attorney stated that "Although it has been more than 20 years since the passage of the ADA, employers still need to be reminded that employees with disabilities are entitled to reasonable accommodations which do not pose an undue hardship."

 

Temp Agency Sued For Firing Employee With Prosthetic Leg Because They "Did Not Want Anyone Bumping Into Her"

A staffing agency, Staffmark, sent a woman with a prosthetic leg to work as a temporary SONY employee in an Illinois facility which packages and/or inspects Sony products that are being shipped out. After two days she was told by Staffmark that she would be removed from her job and reassigned “because they did not want anyone bumping into her.” No reassignment was made by Staffmark and she was fired.


The EEOC found “reasonable cause” to believe that Staffmark and Sony fired the woman because of her prosthetic leg, in violation of the ADA, and today the EEOC announced that it had sued both companies.
 

One EEOC lawyer stated that the woman “was fired because of unjustified fears about her having a prosthetic leg. Firing employees because of baseless fears and stereotypes about their disabilities is illegal, and the EEOC will defend the victims of such unlawful conduct."
 

Staffing agencies take note: another EEOC lawyer warned that "Staffing agencies cannot avoid liability for discrimination by saying they were just following an employer-client's orders, nor can employers avoid liability by saying the victim was 'really employed' by their staffing agency.”
 

Nursing Home Which Provides Care To The Mentally Disabled Settles Case Alleging It Fired Nurse With Depression

Our blog of October 1st reported that three employers in the health care business have been sued by the EEOC for violations of the ADA.

 

The EEOC has just announced a $50,000 settlement with another health care provider -- a Charlotte nursing home that provides care to people who are mentally and physically disabled, ill and/or elderly. The home allegedly fired a nurse who suffers from depression and had a major depressive episode which led to her being admitted to a local hospital, refusing her request for a medical leave of absence accommodation.

 

The EEOC has long targeted employers who allegedly violate the ADA.  It seems that the health care industry is especially in the sights of the EEOC.

   

EEOC Settles "Historic" ADA Class Action

The EEOC announced today that it has settled what it called a “historic” class action suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) against Interstate Distributor Company for a whopping $4.85 million. The suit alleged that pursuant to the company’s “maximum leave” and “no restrictions” policies, Interstate Distributor denied reasonable accommodations to hundreds of employees and fired them.


 

The challenged company policies was quite clear, and quite illegal. Under the maximum leave policy, any employee needing more than the maximum 12 weeks of leave was fired – no questions asked and no reasonable accommodations discussed. Under the no restrictions policy, an employee with a medical restriction was refused a return to work and, again, no questions were asked and no reasonable accommodations discussed.


 

An EEOC attorney stated that "This settlement demonstrates the need for employers to have attendance policies which take into account the need for paid or unpaid leave as a reasonable accommodation for employees with disabilities."

 

We blogged this week that “company policies are great and desirable,” but that they cannot be discriminatory!
 

 

EEOC Targets Extreme Sexual Abuse of "Vulnerable" Employees In Recent Lawsuits

“Harrowing,” “appalling” and “extreme abuse” were words used by EEOC lawyers regarding a series of recently filed cases targeting sexual harassment of farmworkers. It appears that the EEOC is periodically targeting different types of discrimination and different industries, and selecting particularly egregious cases to make a point to employers. Recently, for example, we noted that the EEOC was targeting the health care industry, ADA violators, as well as pregnancy discrimination.


Now the EEOC has announced that it has filed numerous lawsuits within the last few days targeting sexual harassment, particularly of farmworkers, who are subject to an “appalling abuse of power.”


In perhaps the most “harrowing case” (quoting an EEOC attorney), the EEOC sued River Point Farms of Oregon, alleging that a supervisor reinforced the domestic abuse of a female employee by verbally abusing her for years and publicly encouraging the woman's husband to kill her. After her husband tried to kill her when she was pregnant by kicking her in the stomach “so savagely” that she had to go to the hospital, the supervisor blamed her for causing her husband's arrest and then fired her.


The woman was quoted as saying that "My supervisor told me I was less than a man, that my husband should be allowed to beat me, and that I should put up with it because I am a woman."


The EEOC also sued Washington’s Roy Farms, alleging that a male supervisor sexually harassed male laborers for two years by assaulting them with sexual and threatening comments, touching them in a sexual manner and insisting that they watch him urinate. "I have worked in the farm industry for many years, and I had never before faced such extreme abuse," said one EEOC attorney.


Finally, the EEOC sued National Food Corporation, a major egg supplier in Washington, alleging that it allowed a supervisor to physically grab a female worker, who worked alone in an isolated barn where the harasser was the only management person on site, and make sexual demands upon her several times a week for years. "I suffered humiliating and disgusting demands from my boss," said the barn worker.


To underscore its efforts involving sexual harassment of “vulnerable workers,” another EEOC attorney recounted several recent settlements. Seattle’s Allstar Fitness paid a $150,000 settlement on behalf of a janitor repeatedly raped and then fired. Oregon-based Wilcox Farms settled a sexual harassment and physical sexual assault case for $260,000. And ABM Industries, Inc. paid $5.8 million to 21 janitorial workers who were sexually harassed by 14 male coworkers and supervisors, including one who was raped by a supervisor.

 

These may be "appalling" cases chosen by the EEOC to make a point, but it goes without saying that all employers in the United States must have a written "zero tolerance" policy regarding sexual harassment distributed to all employees and managers and enforced by the employer, as well as appropriate periodic sexual harassment training of both employees and managers. 

 

 

 

 

EEOC Making An Example Of Health Care Industry As ADA Violators

Three more employers in the health care business have been sued by the EEOC for violations of the ADA.  On September 27th we wrote that given the blitz of new case filings the EEOC has apparently decided to go after companies which allegedly violate the ADA. (It is also apparently targeting pregnancy discrimination cases – see our blog from earlier today).


In the
first case, the EEOC alleges that University of Maryland Faculty Physicians, Inc. has a lateness and attendance policy which fails to provide for exceptions or modifications to its attendance policy as a reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities, and, in this case, refused to provide an additional day of unpaid leave as a reasonable accommodation to an employee with Crohn’s disease who was unable to work for two weeks while undergoing medical treatment, including two emergency room visits and a hospitalization.


In the
second case, the EEOC allege a day care center operated by Osceola Community Hospital in Sibley, Iowa unlawfully failed to hire a woman as a child care worker despite the fact that she has years of child care experience because of her cerebral palsy. She was passed over in favor of less-qualified applicants. 

 

In the third case, the EEOC sued St. Alexius Medical Center (SAMC) in Hoffman Estates, Ill., alleging failed to accommodate a hospital greeter who has a cognitive disability.


 

Its Now Clear: The EEOC Is Targeting Pregnancy Discrimination

On May 21st we wrote that the EEOC was serious about enforcing Title VII pregnancy discrimination number as indicated by the rapid rise of such lawsuits -- in fiscal 2011, there was an increase of 23% in the number of EEOC charges alleging pregnancy discrimination.

 

An EEOC local regional director noted then that “Having a new child should be a joyous event, not one that leads to unemployment,” and we warned employers that they would be well advised to listen to the EEOC warnings – and ours too!

 

Christina Wilkie of The Huffington Post has also observed this.  We mentioned last week that the EEOC had launched four new pregnancy discrimination suits, which the HuffPost commented “likely represent early steps in the EEOC's plan to tackle pregnancy discrimination and employer accommodation of pregnant employees over the coming year, a subject it labels ‘an emerging issue.’"


HuffPost quotes the VP and general counsel of the National Women's Law Center as saying that "I'm very heartened to see the EEOC step up on this."

 

We have cautioned employers for a long time about this, but the sorry state of affairs continues. 

 

EEOC Lawsuit: Employee With Depression Fired By Company That Services Persons With Mental Health Problems

Yesterday we blogged that the EEOC has filed a number of ADA lawsuits, perhaps signaling the nature of their current agenda.


Well, another case was just announced by the EEOC. It was alleged that Bobby E. Wright Comprehensive Behavioral Health Center, a Chicago health center that provides services to persons with mental health, behavioral, emotional, and substance abuse problems, failed to accommodate and then fired an employee who requested time off to seek treatment for depression and panic.  Instead, the EEOC alleges, it required her to be treated by the company doctor, and then fired her because of her disability.


Recall that on September 21st we reported that Phoenix-based Creative Networks, which also services the disabled, was just held to have violated the ADA.


It’s a mystery to me how a company whose purpose is to help those with disabilities can turn around and fail to accommodate employees with the exact same disabilities.  Can it be that they know their business well enough but do not know the law?
 


 

EEOC Files Multiple ADA Lawsuits In One Day

The EEOC has apparently decided to go after companies which allegedly violate the ADA, if yesterday’s blitz of new case filings is any indication. 
  

In one case, the EEOC charged that a nationwide provider of concrete and masonry construction products discriminated against an employee who suffered an adverse reaction to her doctor-prescribed bipolar medication, and was required to take a drug test. When the medication was the only substances found in the test, she was fired immediately.
 

In two separate lawsuits, the EEOC charged that a health system company extended job offers to two women upon the condition that they complete medical examinations. One disclosed that she suffered from multiple sclerosis and the second disclosed that she had carpal tunnel disorder, both of which are disabling conditions. Following their medical exams, although both women were able to perform the essential functions of the jobs that they had been offered, the company rescinded the two job offers claiming they had failed to disclose their health conditions.
 

The EEOC sued a Texas company which required that an employee with a club foot work on his feet for hours on hard concrete, even though the employee and his physician had informed the company that such standing for more than one hour caused him severe pain and weakness. He was fired despite the fact that he provided the company with medical documentation to support his request for a reasonable accommodation.
 

Finally, the EEOC sued another Texas company which provides services for auctions and alternatives to home foreclosures because it denied an employee who suffered a stroke the reasonable accommodation of a modest extension of her leave time that was required by her disability.
 

Anyone care to venture a guess as to what's on the EEOC's agenda?

 

Employer Must Have Written Policies But They Can't Be Discriminatory

As all employment lawyers, we harangue clients to draft and follow employment policies and procedures manuals. Such manuals can be of great assistance in warding off discrimination claims and in winning them.
 

However, it should be obvious that this is surely not the case if the employment policies and procedures manual memorializes a discriminatory policy. That’s just what one employer did and is now being sued by the EEOC.
 

The EEOC alleges that a Texas company violated Title VII when it fired pregnant employees after their third month of pregnancy -- under a written policy in the employee handbook.  Apparently, a company manager admitted that company procedure required him to fire the women because it would "be irresponsible in respect to her child's safety" to keep them at work, even though one woman’s doctor wrote that she could work until the 36th week of her pregnancy.
 

One EEOC attorney stated that "An employer cannot dictate, out of a desire to protect a pregnant employee or for any other reason, whether a female employee continues to work during her pregnancy." A second noted that "The Supreme Court has made clear that the decision whether a pregnant woman should work rests solely with her. She alone, and not the employer, is responsible for making decisions that affect her safety and that of her child. An employer's policy which forces leave on a pregnant employee is exactly the type of conduct the Supreme Court has found to be unlawful."
 

Employers: don’t presume to know better than the doctor or the law!
 

 

Company Which Serves The Disabled Loses To Hearing Impaired ADA Plaintiff

Creative Networks, a Phoenix-based company that provides services to disabled clients, has just been hit with summary judgment for failing to hire a hearing-impaired applicant because of her disability, and failing to accommodate her by sticking to its rigid policy or practice of denying hearing-impaired applicants' requests for interpreting services costing more than $200 to complete its pre-employment orientation and training.

 

The judge wrote that "Creative Networks denied [plaintiff] an employment opportunity and the denial was based on her need for reasonable accommodations. Indeed, Defendant's failure to offer [plaintiff] reasonable accommodations foreclosed her opportunity for employment by preventing her from proceeding further in the application process."
 

 

A company servicing the disabled held to violate the ADA?  Seems like even if you are in the business you still do not necessarily know the rules. 

 

 

Company Which Paid Trusting "Intellectually Disabled" Workers $65 a Month Slapped With $1.3 Million In Back Wages

Workers for Henry's Turkey Service were paid only $65 dollars per month to work eviscerating turkeys on an assembly line. According to the EEOC, they were lawfully entitled to be paid the average Iowa minimum wage of $11-12 per hour. Seems like a clear-cut wage claim – so why is the EEOC involved?


In a case brought by the EEOC under the ADA, an expert witness told the court that the company exploited the workers because they had intellectual disabilities, and simply did not know better. She stated that the employer’s conduct "including acts of deliberate misrepresentation" about wages and expenditures, deprived the workers of "economic independence and self-sufficiency." The company "took advantage of the workers ... knowing that they would not likely be discovered because the workers were disabled."
 

In addition to the discriminatory pay practices, the EEOC claimed that the disabled workers were abused verbally and physically, had their freedom unnecessarily restricted, were subject to harsh punishments, required to live collectively in substandard living conditions, and received inadequate health care.
 

In its defense, the company contended that it should be credited with wages for providing a 100-year-old former schoolhouse known as "the bunkhouse" as living quarters, but the evidence showed that the the "bunkhouse" was closed down by fire marshals as unsafe, its heating was inadequate, it was bug and rodent-infested, and the broken roof poured water inside.
 

The court found that the workers, some of whom had performed the work for over 25 years, were the victims of wage discrimination, and ordered the company to pay them lawful wages totaling $1.3 million. The court left for trial the issues concerning the hostile workplace.
 

An EEOC attorney stated that the case “reflects the sad reality that we still have a ways to go to ensure that employment of persons with disabilities does not require them to sacrifice their true earning capacity or their human dignity."


 

Senator Casey To Sponsor Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

Neither the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”) nor the ADA provide for accommodations for pregnant women in the workplace who can perform some but not all of their duties, since (1) the PDA only protects women who are pregnant but can perform their job duties or who cannot work at all and need leave, and (2) under the ADA pregnancy is not deemed a disability.

 

A bill sponsored by 108 members of the House (all Democrats) and now introduced in the Senate by Robert Casey of Pennsylvania -- the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (“PWFA”), would require “reasonable adjustment” – that is, it would prohibit employers from firing pregnant women or denying them accommodations so that they can continue to work, such as, for example, providing stools for cashiers.

 

Dr. Maureen Perry-Jenkins, a University of Massachusetts researcher, has conducted a study of low-income working families, and has told The National Women’s Law Center  that she found that many women feet that they had no choice but to quit physically demanding jobs where their pregnancies no longer permitted them to stand for long periods of time, lift heavy objects or work very long shifts with no break. “They have no expectations that their employers would accommodate them at work and so they quit in their 6th, 7th or 8th month of pregnancy.”

 

The National Women’s Law Center has stated that “The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is a critical step toward fairer treatment for pregnant workers. It would provide clear protections to working women so that they can get accommodations that they need to continue working during their pregnancies.”

 

Sheila Bapat, at RH Reality Check, says that “ The current Congress may not pay any attention to the PWFA, but advocates should continue pushing for it at the federal and state level. The good news: several states already have PWFA-esque protections including California, Connecticut, Louisiana, Hawaii and Texas. These laws require employers to provide reasonable accommodations for pregnant employees. California’s law has been used multiple times to help pregnant women keep their jobs.”

 

Fred Clark reports at Patheos that: “The PWFA would help to remove one powerful economic incentive for abortion — a real situation that real people face. Anti-abortion groups therefore ought to support it.” Interestingly, he notes, “if any of them are supporting it, they’re doing so very, very quietly.”
 

 

Disabled Workers Who Are Fired Because Of Their Disability Must Be Reassigned to A Vacant Position

A federal appeals court has just reversed itself and upheld the EEOC position that an ADA provision relating to “reassignment” requires that employers appoint to a vacant position for which they are qualified those employees who are losing their current positions due to disability. The Court upheld such reassignments “provided that such accommodations would be ordinarily reasonable and would not present an undue hardship to that employer.”

 

This decision is notable because it completely reverses the same court’s prior decision on the same issue. The Court noted this reversal, and based its new decision on a Supreme Court decision which purportedly “undermined” its earlier decision.

 

The Court quoted with approval from another court decision a recitation of the two-part test established by the Supreme Court to balance, when it comes to reassignment, the competing interests of “accommodation” and  a disability-neutral rule of the employer which discourages “preferences.”


“It therefore appears that the [Supreme] Court has prescribed the following two-step approach for cases in which a requested accommodation in the form of a job reassignment is claimed to violate a disability-neutral rule of the employer. The first step requires the employee to show that the accommodation is a type that is reasonable in the run of cases.

The second step varies depending on the outcome of the first step. If the accommodation is shown to be a type of accommodation that is reasonable in the run of cases, the burden shifts to the employer to show that granting the accommodation would impose an undue hardship under the particular circumstances of the case. On the other hand, if the accommodation is not shown to be a type of accommodation that is reasonable in the run of cases, the employee can still prevail by showing that special circumstances warrant a finding that the accommodation is reasonable under the particular circumstances of the case.”

 

This is not the first court to hold this way, and employers must be aware of the "reassignment" provisions of the ADA and the test to determine whether such reassignment is required.  It is not simple, and counsel should likely be consulted in such a situation.

  
 

Claims of Employment Discrimination Based Upon Disability May Not Be Brought Under Title II of the ADA

WARNING:  This blog entry is probably of interest (if at all) only to lawyers.

 

Title I of the ADA prohibits employment discrimination against “a qualified individual with a disability.” This is the law that a disabled employee usually invokes if she claims disability discrimination in employment.  An interesting case was filed in federal court in Oklahoma in which plaintiff sued not under Title I, but under Title II of the ADA.  Why, you ask, under Title II and not Title I?   Good question.

 

Plaintiff was an employee at the University of Oklahoma who had a progressively worsening spinal and nerve injury, and alleged that the state university refused to accommodate her disability and eventually fired her. The University, however, is considered an “arm of the state,” and it has been held that as a state entity it is immune from suit under Title I of the ADA.  So being resourceful and creative, plaintiff sued under Title II – which does not so immunize the state or any state entity.

 

There is a problem, however, in suing under Title II.  Title II does not explicitly prohibit discrimination in employment  -- it provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 

 

The University contended that Plaintiff was simply trying to “recast” her proscribed Title I employment discrimination claim as one under Title II, in an improper attempt to circumvent the state’s immunity.

 

The Court agreed.  It held that “[t]he plain language of the ADA, when read as a whole, does not support a cause of action for employment discrimination under Title II.”  It has been held that “The definition of who qualifies for protection under Title II reflects its emphasis on the provision of public services and programs,” and because of the fact that Title II deals only with “services, programs, or activities,” it is not a “catch-all” prohibition against all discrimination by a public entity. 

 

Out goes any employment disability claim under Title II!

 

 

Misperception About A Disability's Effects Violates The ADA

The EEOC has just sued a San Antonio company today for allegedly firing an employee after she had an attack of Bell's palsy, a neurological disorder. When she returned to work after being hospitalized, she was fired because management believed that she had suffered a stroke and was concerned that she might experience another one on the job.
 

Employers should be aware – but many are not – that the ADA prohibits making an adverse determination about an employee – such as termination -- not only based upon a disability or record of disability, but also because the employer perceives the employee to be disabled.
 

An EEOC trial attorney stated that it is illegal “to fire someone simply because of an inaccurate perception about a medical impairment or disability."   Another EEOC attorney said that the employee was cleared medically to return to work and should have been permitted to return to work, but instead “the company allowed speculation and fears over her perceived disability to prevent this employee from returning to her job. This is exactly the type of discrimination the ADA was meant to address and stop."
 

 

Another Case Involving Associational Discrimination and Employee Caregivers

An employee, not otherwise disabled, is fired because he takes time off to care for a disabled son. Is the ADA violated?
 

Yesterday we wrote about the concepts of “associational discrimination” and “family responsibilities discrimination,” in light of a new court decision that the ADA does not require employers to accommodate employees who do not themselves have a disability but seek an accommodated schedule to care for a disabled relative.
 

We just learned of a second federal appeals court decision in which an employee was required to take time off to care for his disabled son who suffers from cerebral palsy and severe asthma. He was fired, and claimed that he was discriminated against in violation of the ADA on the basis of his son's disabilities -- he claimed that the decision to terminate him was motivated by his relationship with his son.

 

The employer, however, adduced evidence that the employee tried to cause a slowdown in work by discouraging others from working overtime, and that this is what lead to his firing.

 

The Court stated that the ADA makes it unlawful to deny equal jobs or benefits to a qualified individual “because of the known disability of an individual with whom the qualified individual is known to have a relationship.” The Court also stated that to establish a violation of the ADA, plaintiff must prove that the employer was motivated by knowledge of his son's disability.

 

Ultimately, the Court held that the reason given for firing plaintiff constituted a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason.

 

While this is not precisely like the case we discussed yesterday, and the result was dictated by a different set of facts and claims, the point to be made – again -- is that while "punishing someone because of who he or she associates with doesn’t pass the smell test,” nonetheless                      “[a]ssociational discrimination claims are unlike those otherwise falling under the ADA because employers are not required to provide reasonable accommodations to non-disabled workers.”

 

In this case, the Court held that the employee was fired for reasons unrelated to his disabled son. But under the rationale of the case analyzed yesterday, what if he had been fired because he took an unapproved leave to care for his disabled son? Would this court have held differently? Would the court have held that the employee was fired not because of his association with his disabled son but because he had no right to an accommodation to take care of his son (as yesterday’s court held)? Or would the court have held that there was a violation of the ADA?
 

 

Under the ADA No Need To Accommodate Employee Who Cares For Disabled Daughter

The concepts of “associational discrimination” and “family responsibilities discrimination” have just met in a case arising out of Illinois.


Associational Discrimination

"Punishing someone because of who he or she associates with doesn’t pass the smell test” is a quote we used way back in March 2012 about “associational discrimination” -- discrimination, usually retaliation, based upon relationships or associations. In January 2011, we talked about a significant new Supreme Court case where an employee claimed that he was discriminated against based upon his wife's race and national origin.


Family Responsibilities Discrimination

On another subject we recently blogged about the push for a new family responsibilities discrimination law and the rights or concerns about employee-caregivers, who make up a growing population of employees. See our blogs of September 3rd and September 4th.

 

The New Decision

A new federal appeals court decision in a case under the ADA has brought into sharp relief the issue of whether an employer must accommodate an employee who must spend time providing care to her disabled daughter. “Associational discrimination” and “family responsibilities discrimination” are now coming together as our graying population increasingly needs care from working relatives.

 

An employee sued under the ADA claiming associational discrimination when St. Mark United Methodist Church terminated her based on allegedly “unfounded assumptions” concerning her association with her mentally disabled daughter. The employer claimed that her work was unsatisfactory and that she refused to work weekends. However, as the Court noted, both parties “agree that [the employee’s] unwillingness to work weekends was a contributing and possibly primary reason for her termination.”

 

The Court teased apart the tangle of facts and claims and came to the simple but quite important conclusion that “the crux of this case remains [the employee’s] belief that she should not be made to work on weekends when she needs to care for her daughter. Unfortunately for [her], despite the fact that the church may have placed her in a difficult situation considering her commendable commitment to care for her disabled daughter, she was not entitled to an accommodated schedule” since “the ADA does not require employers to reasonably accommodate employees who do not themselves have a disability (emphasis added”).

 

The Court stated that while the ADA provides that “an employer is prohibited from discriminating against an employee “because of the known disability of an individual with whom [the employee] is known to have a relationship or association,” nonetheless “[a]ssociational discrimination claims are unlike those otherwise falling under the ADA because employers are not required to provide reasonable accommodations to non-disabled workers.”

 

Conclusions

This case illustrates the fact that (1) more and more employees are increasingly under pressure to provide care to ailing or disabled relatives while at the same time working full time; (2) caregiving employees will rapidly face marginalization, termination or the need to resign because of their family responsibilities; (3) there are no laws which protect caregiving employees or provide that an accommodation be made for their caregiving; and (4) employers will lose valuable employees if no accommodation is made for their caregiving responsibilities.

 

 

 

 

Employers: Don't Fire Employees For Taking Legally Prescribed Meds

Employers should be familiar with the requirements of ADA, at least to the extent that they don’t do what one employer allegedly did. The EEOC just announced that it settled for $750,000 a 2009 ADA case against an employer which apparently never even heard of the ADA.

 

The defendant auto parts company in Tennessee drug tested all of its plant employees for 12 substances, including 7 legally prescribed drugs. Incredibly, the lawsuit alleged that the company:  

(1) required the employees who tested positive for the legally prescribed medications to disclose the medical conditions for which they were taking these medications;

(2) made it a condition of continued employment that the employees stop taking their prescription medications, even without any evidence that the medications were affecting their job performances;

(3) suspended employees until they stopped taking their prescription medications;

(4) fired those employees who were unable to perform their job duties without the benefit of their prescription medications; and.

(5) conducted the drug tests in a way that the identities of those employees who tested positive were disclosed to the rest of the employees,

 

Employers who think that any one of these acts is OK, should read the ADA or consult counsel – quickly!
 

 

EEOC Commisioners To Go On Barnstorming Tour Next Month

EEOC Commissioners Chai Feldblum and Victoria A. Lipnic have announced today that they will barnstorm the country next month to conduct training seminars to discuss the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (“ADAAA”).


The dates and locations of these seminars are:


• Sept. 11 in Seattle (Doubletree Seattle Airport)
• Sept. 13 in Los Angeles (Four Points Sheraton Los Angeles Airport)
• Sept. 18 in Boston (Colonnade Hotel)
• Sept. 20 in Miami (Hilton Miami Downtown)


The EEOC says that “People interested in learning more about the seminars, or registering for one of them, may do so at the web page of the EEOC Training Institute, the agency's office that organizes paid training and education programs to combat and prevent disability discrimination”:
http://www.eeotraining.eeoc.gov/viewpage.aspx?ID=d83b1763-4f98-464e-afc3-35c8c0c52956 

 

 

Under The ADA, Psychological Counseling May Be A Prohibited "Medical Examination"

The ADA forbids employers from requiring medical examinations unless they are job-related.  In a significant new decision, a federal appeals court yesterday has held that psychological counseling may be considered a “medical examination” under the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”).

 

Plaintiff Is Directed To Get Counseling But Refuses

The facts of this case are important, although somewhat in dispute, which is why the appeals court sent it back for a trial. The Court recited the relevant facts as follows: Plaintiff was a good EMT ambulance driver, and after she became “romantically involved” with a co-workers, employees expressed concern about her well being and the office manager “requested” that she receive psychological counseling.

 

There was a later dispute between plaintiff and another co-worker, and a complaint about her screaming on the phone while driving a patient in an emergency vehicle, which led to her supervisor ordering her to attend counseling. She refused, was fired, and sued alleging that the demand that she attend counseling was in violation of the ADA, and that her firing was in retaliation for her refusal to attend counseling.

 

The ADA Section on Medical Examinations and The EEOC Guidance

The appeals court wrestled with whether such counseling constitutes a “medical examination” under the ADA. The relevant section of the ADA prohibits employers from “requir[ing] a medical examination” or “mak[ing] inquiries of an employee as to whether such employee is an individual with a disability . . . unless such examination or inquiry is shown to be job-related and consistent with business necessity.”

 

The Court found “very persuasive authority” about what this section of the ADA means from the EEOC’s "Enforcement Guidance: Disability-Related Inquiries and Medical Examinations of Employees Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)," which the Court stated “explains that ‘psychological tests that are designed to identify a mental disorder or impairment’ are ‘medical examinations,’ while ‘psychological tests that measure personality traits such as honesty, preferences, and habits” are not.’”

 

The Court stated that the reason behind the law as noted by the EEOC is to prevent discrimination by “precluding employers from obtaining information about ‘nonvisible disabilities, such as ... mental illness,’ and then taking adverse employment actions ‘despite [an individual’s] ability to perform the job.’”  The Court noted that the EEOC's Guidance suggests that psychological tests that are designed to identify a mental disorder or impairment are medical examinations, while psychological tests that measure personality traits are not.

 

Based upon the Court’s reading of the law and the EEOC Guidance, it held that because the company expressed concern that plaintiff was suffering from depression, there were issues of fact to be sent for a trial as to whether the employer intended for her to attend counseling so that she could explore the possibility of mental health impairment and receive treatment – which would be violative of the ADA.

 

Unfortunately, the law is the law, and although the intent is to protect employees, it has the effect sometimes of punishing good Samaritan employers -- let no good deed go unpunished!

 

 

EEOC Announces Two New ADA Settlements

The EEOC has just announced that it settled two suits both based upon the ADA, one case which involved an employee who had an epileptic seizure, and one case where the employer feared the future effects of an employee who had suffered a stroke. Employers should be aware that the ADA protects not only employees and job applicants who have actual disabilities, but those who are perceived to have disabilities.


In one lawsuit, the EEOC claimed that JES Personnel Consultants, Inc., doing business as Genie Temporary Service, terminated an employee who, on his first day of work, had an epileptic seizure, this despite that he provided the required doctor’s note authorizing him to return to work.  The case was settled for $80,000.


In the second case, the EEOC settled a suit (for $50,000) with Maximus, Inc., a Virginia business consulting services firm which failed to promote an employee “because of concerns about the residual effects of a stroke that she suffered in July 2009.”   An EEOC Regional Attorney stated that “Employers must remember that they cannot deny work opportunities to people who are ready and able simply because of inaccurate perceptions about medical impairments and disabilities (emphasis added).”

 

Orders to "Go see the Doc" cost Baltimore County $475,000

Bloomberg BNA is reporting that Baltimore County and the Department of Justice have entered into a consent decree wherein the County will pay $475,000 to settle the claims of 10 employees and applicants who alleged that they were sent for unnecessary medical examinations in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the Genetic Information Nondisclosure Act ("GINA").

 

The complaint filed in this action also alleges that employees were compelled to execute medical authorizations releasing all of their medical records.  The complaint further alleges that the employer often turned over Workers' Compensation records to the doctors conducting the medical examinations, even where those records were not relevant to the examination.

 

Hopefully, employers recognize that under the ADA regulations, an employer is limited to requesting medical examinations only where the examinations are job-related and consistent with business necessity.  What is equally important for employers to recognize is that breaches of confidentiality of medical records can result in big liability under the ADA and GINA. 

 

Confidentiality is also a hot topic in other areas of the law as several large class action lawsuits have been filed for HIPAA breaches.  If you're interested in reading more about how costly these actions are, check out our partner, Elizabeth Litten's July 31st blog about a $2.5 million settlement due to a HIPAA breach.

 

In short, the least amount of medical information necessary to evaluate an employee is what should be provided to examiners.  For example, if you have an employee being evaluated to see if he can perform the essential functions of his job after a shoulder injury, the examining doctor should not be given the medical records relating to his planter's wart being removed.

 

Employers should also review releases and any medical authorizations to insure that, pursuant to GINA, there is a notice provided to medical providers that they are not to disclose genetic information when releasing medical records.

 

 

 

 

What Does Japanese Cherry Blossom Perfume Have to Do With The ADA?

Apparently quite a bit – it is directly implicated in an employee’s contention that she is disabled and requires an accommodation.

 

A federal court recently upheld the viability of an ADA claim filed by an employee who was allergic to one particular perfume worn by colleagues and who alleged that her employer did not attempt to accommodate her “reasonable” request “to minimize and limit Plaintiff's potential exposure to perfumes that trigger her severe asthma.”

 

Plaintiff was an employee since February 2003, and alleged that she suffered from asthma and “a severe chemical sensitivity to certain perfumes,” i.e., Japanese Cherry Blossom perfume, which interfered with the major life activity of breathing.  She alleged that in February 2008 she began developing breathing problems at work when she was near co-workers who used this perfume.

 

Her condition worsened and when she requested that the employer ask the employees to refrain from wearing this perfume at work, and when she suffered a severe allergic reaction in 2010 which required hospital treatment, co-workers began ridiculing her on Facebook, and intentionally continued to wear the perfume.

 She sued.

The employer attempted to accommodate plaintiff’s disability: (1) it requested employees to communicate only by phone or email with plaintiff; and (2) it requested that plaintiff communicate with co-workers in person only in open and well-ventilated open areas. The employer also proposed that plaintiff have access to an inhaler at work, be permitted to go outside as often as necessary, and that an email be sent to all employees asking them to stop wearing this particular perfume. However, plaintiff rejected these proposals as not being “sufficient protection.”

 

In the course of a procedural dispute, the court found that plaintiff had stated a “plausible” claim (not necessarily that she proved that claim) for failure on the part of the employer to accommodate her “reasonable” accommodation requests – for a policy preventing co-workers from wearing the offending perfume (not merely a request), especially given her co-workers' intentional wearing of it after she made the request that they stop; and to be able to work from home.

 

The court stated that “The purpose of the requested accommodation was not to completely eliminate any possibility that perfume and other fragrances will be worn into the … workplace by members of the public. … Instead, the purpose of the proposed recommendation was to minimize and limit Plaintiff's potential exposure to perfumes that trigger her severe asthma.”
 

 

"I'm Sorry - It Will Never Happen Again" and $2,000 Settles Australian Pregnancy Discrimination Case

The Australian Hospitality Magazine has reported that The Fair Work Ombudsman found that a catering company known as “The Soup Box” discriminated against a female employee because of her pregnancy. The employee, after announcing that she was pregnant, had her work hours slashed to three hours per week, and was therefore forced to resign.  

 

The company agreed to settle the case and entered into an Enforceable Undertaking with the Fair Work Ombudsman in which it admitted that it discriminated against the employee because of her pregnancy. It agreed pay her $2,000, to seek “workplace relations” advice (particularly about discrimination), and, oh yes, to apologize to the employee.  

 

Reports the magazine, “The Soup Box expresses its “sincere regret” for its behaviour and gives a commitment that it will not happen again.”

 

Read our recent blog for a quick comparison between the American Title VII and the Australian Fair Work Act.

 

 

More Code Words: Calling An Employee With A Learning Disability "Forrest Gump" Is Not Construed As A Reference To His Haircut

A federal judge has just denied summary judgment to the Dickinson Independent School District in a case brought by a terminated grounds and utility employee who alleged a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA") because he had a learning disability, which he characterized as “borderline mental retardation.” He also claimed disability-based workplace harassment under the ADA because he was called “Forrest Gump” by co-workers.

 

In defense, the School District contended, among other things, that the employee was not disabled, but the Court held that this was a material issue of fact after the employee adduced evidence that he “requires parental assistance to pay his bills, file for unemployment benefits, obtain health insurance and health care, complete job applications, monitor his bank account, buy groceries, and eat properly."  An affidavit he submitted by his mother also stated that he has “difficulty in understanding instructions, limited speech and vocabulary, participation in special education classes at DISD, and that his IQ score is 72.”

 

The key issue for our blog today is the employee’s claim of disability-based workplace harassment under the ADA, based upon his being referred to by co-workers as “Forrest Gump.” The judge held that to establish such a claim, the employee must demonstrate (1) that he belongs to a protected group; (2) that he was subjected to unwelcome harassment; (3) that the harassment complained of was based on his disability; (4) that the harassment complained of affected a term, condition or privilege of employment; and (5) that the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt, remedial action.

 

In this case, the employee “presented testimony that he not only endured discrete derogatory remarks, but that the harassment affected the form and nature of his work assignments,” although the employer claimed that these allegations were not “sufficiently pervasive or severe to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment.”

 

The judge concluded, rather bitingly, that plaintiff provided sufficient evidence of harassment, stating that “the Court will consider [defendant’s] employees’ references to [plaintiff] as “Forrest Gump” to be due to Gump's ‘naïve and slow-witted’ nature (the Plaintiff's characterization), rather than to Gump's haircut (the Defendant's interpretation), All-American athletic career for the University of Alabama, ping-pong prowess, Congressional Medal of Honor, shrimping business, or cross-country running abilities (emphasis added).”

 

Employers should take away from this decision the fact that courts will look through and disregard strained or unreasonable interpretations of words which a reasonable person might justifiably understand as discriminatory code words. The more that code words become recognized over time for what they are and what they mean, the more obscure and disguised the code words uttered by employees will likely become, and employers should therefore be aware of what is said by their employees and what the words likely mean or are understood or intended to mean. 
 

 

Add Another State To The List That Has Found That Obesity Discrimination Is Illegal Since Obesity Is An Impairment

On July 2d we wrote a lengthy piece on “obesity discrimination” -- discrimination in employment based on obesity, and noted that aside from a few statutes around the nation which explicitly prohibit such discrimination, there are a few courts which have taken the position that obesity is a “disability” or "impairment" under the expanded ADA definition.


The Missoulian has reported that the Montana Supreme Court has just ruled that “if a person’s weight is outside the normal range and affects one or more body systems, it may constitute a physical or mental impairment – even if it’s not a symptom of some underlying disease or health condition (our emphasis).”
 

This decision, based as it is as regarding obesity as an impairment per se even if there is no other underlying condition is a significant broadening of existing law (albeit even if it is only under Montana law, not the ADA).  

 

How Much is that Doggie in the Office?

Happy Take Your Dog to Work Day! 

 

A few months ago I broached the subject of the National Take Your Dog to Work Day with our Office Administrator, sort of feeling the waters if she thought our Office Managing Partner could be persuaded.  I made an impassioned plea that my dog would be a very good dog in the office.  I even sent her an adorable photo, see Exhibit A:

 

Our Office Administrator's response:  What about people with allergies? 

 

She had a good point.  It did not seem worth it to try to figure out how to accommodate those with allergies simply because I would like to have my dog at work.

 

Her comment got me thinking about what happens when employees' disabilities collide.  For example, one employee needs a service dog and another employee is deathly allergic to dogs. 

 

How does an employer accommodate both or can an employer accommodate both?  Does the service dog trump the allergy because employers are required to permit access to service dogs under Title III of the ADA separate and apart from their obligation to accommodate employees? 

 

I managed to give myself a headache thinking about this. This question does not have an easy answer.  However, under the revised ADA regulations and recent case law, employers need to be more creative than ever when thinking about what accommodations can be done, such as flex time so the employees are not in the office at the same, in addition to the usual solution which might be physically locating the employees' work spaces far away from each other.

 

As usual, when in doubt considering accommodation requests, it is wise for managers to consult human resources and/or legal counsel.

 

Sorry, You Can't Have a Leave Because of Scheduled Vacations is not a Viable Argument for Employers

Perhaps it is because I just got back from a lovely vacation in Turkey, that I am thinking of how important vacations are for employees to recharge.  I mean, who wouldn't be relaxed after spending a week here (this is actually the view from the villa where I stayed):

 

Now that vacation season is here, it is a good time to think about how scheduled vacations are going to impact employees' requests for leave due to a medical condition.  The ADA and local discrimination laws generally provide that an employer must only make a reasonable accommodation where doing so does not cause an undue hardship to the employer.  What is an undue hardship is the cause of much debate, but one factor considered is the ease and/or cost of covering for the employee on leave.

 

I have had problems with clients where vacation requests must be made several months in advance for traditional busy seasons for the employer.  In those cases, managers have, without thoroughly examining the issues, denied an employees' medical leave request because there either was not enough advance notice or there were already three employees on the shift out at the same time.

 

This can be a tricky issue because it is often difficult, if not impossible, to tell employees who have already been approved for vacation months in advance and booked and paid for their travel that their vacation has been revoked.  This is another reason why managers must be trained on how to handle requests for leave and should be coordinating those requests through Human Resources or legal counsel.

 

In the meantime, I will be dreaming of my next vacation. 

Employer Argues In The "Great Texas Lactation Case" That Title VII Does Not Prohibit "Breast Pumping Discrimination" Even If It Prohibits "Lactation Discrimination"

Seems like the “Great Texas Lactation Case” is the significant case that we predicted some time ago.   Blog of February 9, 2012.


The EEOC is seeking to reverse a Texas judge’s decision which denied the Title VII claim of a woman who alleged that she was fired for seeking to pump breast milk while on the job. He famously (notoriously?) said that "Lactation is not pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition." The EEOC argues that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and Title VII protect women from being fired for lactation and breast pumping.


The Texas Pediatric Society and the Texas Medical Association has filed a “friend of the court brief” in support of the EEOC’s appeal, arguing that “since the yielding of milk by mammary glands is a medical condition caused by pregnancy and childbirth, lactation is a ‘related medical condition’ as contemplated by Title VII.”


And now the employer has just filed its appeals brief, in which it argues that even if Title VII prohibits “lactation discrimination,” it does not prohibit “breast pumping discrimination.”
 

Getting interesting. But we are still putting our betting money on a reversal. 


 

"Since The Yielding of Milk By Mammary Glands Is A Medical Condition Caused By Pregnancy And Childbirth, Lactation Is A 'Related Medical Condition' As Contemplated by Title VII" *

We reported last week that the EEOC filed an appeal to the federal court of appeals seeking a reversal of the decision of a Texas judge who denied the Title VII claim of a woman who alleged that she was fired for seeking to pump breast milk while on the job, stating that "Lactation is not pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition."


*We can now report that in a “friend of the court brief” submitted by the Texas Pediatric Society and the Texas Medical Association in support of the EEOC’s appeal, the two medical societies have rebuked the trial judge by contending (as our headline notes) that “since the yielding of milk by mammary glands is a medical condition caused by pregnancy and childbirth, lactation is a ‘related medical condition’ as contemplated by Title VII”


We are more convinced now that a reversal will be the result of the appeal.
 

EEOC Appeals Texas Judge's Decision That "Lactation is Not Pregnancy, Childbirth, or A Related Medical Condition"

In our February 16th blog, we reported that a Texas federal judge recently stated, in denying the Title VII claim of a woman who alleged that she was fired for seeking to pump breast milk while on the job, that "Lactation is not pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition."   We suggested in our February 9th blog, that an appeal and reversal was likely, and that “this decision was headed for the dustbin of history.”  See Judy Greenwald’s well-written article in Business Insurance, 2/10/12.

Just yesterday, the EEOC indeed filed an appeal to the federal court of appeals seeking a reversal of this decision, arguing that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and Title VII protect women from being fired for lactation and breast pumping.

The EEOC argued, first, that the lower court’s interpretation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act was too restricted and narrow.  Second, the EEOC claimed that, in any event, discrimination based on lactation violates Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination because lactation is a normal bodily function that is unique to women, i.e., that it is discrimination based on a sex-specific trait. 

We are one for one on this case so far -- an appeal was filed.  Let's see what happens and if we were right about a reversal.  I am doubling down on this bet.


 

Study Confirms Employment Discrimination Against Obese Women

Discrimination against the obese – we discussed this issue in our blog of 3/27, and noted that it is illegal only in Michigan, and about six cities in the US.  

The EEOC has taken the position, as we noted in our blog of February 11, 2011, that weight discrimination may, however, violate the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"), if, for example, the employee's weight substantially impairs a major life activity. Moreover, it may be coupled with a condition caused or exacerbated by obesity, such as hypertension or diabetes, which have been held to be disabling.

Anecdotally, we cited a news report which demonstrates discrimination against the obese -- Citizen's Medical Center in Victoria, Texas has instituted a policy that requires potential employees to have a body mass index (or “BMI”) of less than 35.

In response to the last bog, we received a comment from a distressed reader who asked if anything could be done – she was overweight and lost many jobs after the initial telephone interviews went well, simply because she was overweight. She also noted that many interviewers assumed that she had no abilities to plan and make goals simply because she is overweight. See our blog of 4/9.

The anecdotal evidence of such discrimination has now been confirmed by a study published by scientists at The University of Manchester and Monash University, Melbourne in the International Journal of Obesity. One researcher, Dr. Kerry O'Brien, described the study and the results:
 

"We used pictures of women pre- and post-bariatric surgery, and varied whether participants saw either a resume, amongst many, that had a picture of an obese female (BMI 38-41) attached, or the same female but in a normal weight range (BMI 22-24) following bariatric surgery. We found that strong obesity discrimination was displayed across all job selection criteria, such as starting salary, leadership potential, and likelihood of selecting an obese candidate for the job."
 

The University of Manchester website offers that a "copy of the paper, ‘Obesity discrimination: the role of physical appearance, personal ideology, and anti-fat prejudice,’ published in the International Journal of Obesity, is available on request."

As we asked in our prior blog: how many employers have let the next mega-star employee slip through their fingers simply because of weight?
 


 

EEOC Continues to Sue Large Companies

We told you the other day that EEOC Commissioner Lipnic confimed that the EEOC would continue to file 200 to 300 lawsuits this year, targeting alleged systemic discrimination as well as large companies.     

In this regard, the EEOC just filed suit against a Dollar General store in Ohio, for alleged retaliation in the firing of two employees for their participation in a pregnancy discrimination investigation.   Dollar General is purportedly the nation's largest small-box discount retailer.  

 

The EEOC also filed suit against a Texas Wendy’s franchisee for refusing to hire an applicant who is  hearing-impaired, in alleged violation of The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).   The plaintiff claimed that the general manager told him that “there is really no place for someone we cannot communicate with.”

 

Thanks to the Kansas City Business infoZine.  Read the Dollar General article and the Wendy's article.   

 

 

Suing For Profit and Fun (and Profit!) -- and Maybe Even For Your Client

The New York Times of April 17, 2012 featured a fascinating front page story about lawyers who search out people with disabilities in order to sue small businesses in New York which are not in compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”), by, for example, not being accessible to those in wheel chairs.

Although this is not employment related, it does involve alleged discrimination, and we thought that you might be interested in the resourcefulness of these lawyers, who actively recruit plaintiffs who stand to make $500 per lawsuit, while under the ADA prevailing lawyers can recover their much more substantial legal fees from the businesses sued.  Read a good article on this practice published by Cory Iannacone, Esq. in April 2011

 

In fact, the Times' story mentions one lawyer who has sued 200 New York businesses, and one person with a disability who has been a plaintiff 19 times in 16 months!  

 

The practice may appear unseemly, and it does have its critics, even on the bench. One federal judge wrote that “Plaintiff’s testimony left the distinct impression that he is merely a professional pawn in an ongoing scheme to bilk attorney’s fees from defendant.   

 

Interesting Discussion of the Effects of the ADA Amendments

One of the more interesting discussions I have read of the effect on employers of the relatively new ADA Amendments is in an article dated April 2, 2012 by Michael Maslanka in the Texas Lawyer.  Maslanka describes some important things for employers to think about.

He claims that courts will interpret conditions as disabilities that may not appear to be disabilities. “Sleep apnea? Covered. Attention deficit disorder? Covered. Enlarged prostate? Covered.”

Plaintiffs will likely file summary judgment motions on the issue of whether the plaintiff is disabled, and may frequently win these, where before they were virtually unheard of. 

As to an employer's obligation to “reasonably accommodate” an employee with a disability, “The more new disabilities the ADAAA pumps out, the more employers must engage in the interactive process of developing reasonable accommodation. Failing to engage in the process or taking steps to pre-empt it by firing the employee are discrete violations of the law.”

And most significant to me is his observation that the ADA now effectively expands the FMLA.  There is no FMLA coverage, for example, for an employee without sick leave days who needs periodic time off for fertility treatments because "infertility is not a serious health condition triggering FMLA coverage. Plus, if the employer has less than 50 employees, there is no FMLA coverage, anyway. So, the company's off the hook, right? Not so fast. The employee is entitled to leave as a reasonable accommodation because of a substantial limitation to the major life activity of reproduction."

Employers need to prep carefully when it comes to disability issues, which Maslanka correctly calls a "litigation-generating engine." 

  

 

 

So a Man with a Horse Walks Into a Bar . . .

This is not the start of a joke.  We have not taken a vacation from our usual Employment Discrimination Report to break into the comedy business.  Instead, this is the start of a potential claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

 

MSN recently reported that a disabled man is suing GameStop Corp. for denying him and his miniature horse access to one of its stores.  The man, who uses a wheelchair, uses the miniature horse as a service animal to help pull his wheelchair.

 

In case you missed this in the revised ADA regulations issued in March 2011, the definition of service animal now explicitly includes miniature horses.  It also more narrowly defines service animal so that people cannot simply bring their pets into businesses and claim the animal is for emotional comfort.  Instead, service animals can only be dogs or miniature horses. 

 

Although not as common as dogs, employees should still be trained that this cute little guy is a working service animal.

 

Pregnancy Discrimination and "The War On Women"

The ACLU has just weighed in on pregnancy discrimination as "another battleground in the war on women."

On the subject of pregnancy discrimination, see our numerous recent blog entries.   

 

Employer Hit Hard For Pregnancy Discrimination

In a lawsuit brought by the EEOC, a federal court just awarded a pregnant woman substantial damages after finding that her employer made offensive comments about her pregnancy and then terminated her for taking maternity leave. The termination was particularly offensive – plaintiff learned by certified mail while she was in the hospital recovering from a Caesarean section that she had been fired and that her health insurance had been terminated

The Court awarded damages as follows: 

(1)  back pay plus pre-judgment interest in the sum of $48,340;

(2)  compensatory damages in the sum of $50,000; and

(3)  punitive damages amounting to $50,000. 

The Court also permanently enjoined the employer from engaging in any further pregnancy discrimination.

The EEOC is serious about pregnancy discrimination!   See our blog of February 17, 2012

 

"Stray" Remarks Can Get You Into Trouble

We all know that discrimination can be shown by direct evidence (“You are too old for our workplace”) or indirect evidence (circumstantial evidence by which one can infer that discrimination played a role in the adverse employment action).  

Two federal courts recently dealt with a similar issue – an employee who claims that evidence of discriminatory intent can be seen in one remark from a supervisor.    

In Fried v. LVI Services, a 71 year old employee who had his responsibilities reassigned was told by the president that “you’re 71 years of age … we have to plan for the future,” while in Makowski v. SmithAmundsen LLC, a pregnant employee was told by the head of HR that she was terminated because she was pregnant and took medical leave, and who also told her about the employer’s discriminatory treatment towards other pregnant women.    

 

The trial courts in both cases dismissed the claims. In Fried, the Court determined that this indirect evidence consisted of a “stray” remark – a single, isolated age-related comment.  The EEOC is appealing this ruling to the federal court of appeals in New York.   In Makowski, the appeals court held that there was direct evidence that “pregnancy was the motivating factor” in the employee’s termination, and reinstated the claim.

 

Moral: Don’t make stray comments or ANY comments that can be construed as evidencing “discriminatory animus.”    

 

Court Nixes Disability Claim Based on Inability to Work Overtime

An employee tells you that he has medical restrictions.  The doctor's note says the employee has leukemia and heart problems and as a result cannot work overtime.  If you are the HR director do you start figuring out if you can make the accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act?  Not so fast.

 

The Fourth Circuit recently ruled in Boitnott v. Corning Inc. that an employee with these very same conditions was not disabled -- even under the revised ADA, which lowered the standards for determining if an employee is disabled.  In analyzing the claim, the Court held that although the employee clearly suffered from physical impairments, those physical impairments did not "substantially limit" the employee from working since he could work 40 hours per week.

 

This decision is helpful for employers who have overtime needs that may be sporadic and not necessarily an "essential job function", but, nonetheless need to be covered by employees.  The Court's decision is not an absolute safe haven for employers facing this type of accommodation request.  Rather, the Court did note that there might be some circumstances where, given the employee's training and available jobs in the area, the inability to work overtime due to a medical condition might significantly limit an employee's ability to work and thus, qualify as a disability.

 

Disability accommodation issues remain confusing.  As always, when in doubt, we recommend consulting with a legal professional before making a determination that you do not have to accommodate an employee.

(Photo Credit:  Marcin Wichary)

 

EEOC Sues Alleging Pregnancy Discrimination -- One Day After its Meeting To Discuss this Subject

We noted as recently as yesterday that “the times they are a changin’” – women make up almost one half of the workforce, the number of pregnancy discrimination charges is rising rapidly, and at the EEOC meeting this week experts have strongly argued that the EEOC should be more proactive in directing employers to accommodate women “who require adjustments to work rules as a result of pregnancy or childbirth.” 

Now, as if to put an exclamation point on this discussion, the EEOC, after attempting to resolve the claim, waited until yesterday – the day after its meeting -- to file suit against James E. Brown & Associates PLLC, alleging that it discriminated by revoking an offer of employment to a woman who it later learned was six months pregnant.

 

An EEOC attorney was quoted as pointedly saying that “Employers must remember that refusing to hire a woman because she is pregnant violates federal law, and the EEOC will enforce that law.”

Good to remember!

Lactation in The Workplace and The EEOC - Changing Times

"Lactation is not pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition," held a Texas federal judge recently in denying the Title VII claim of a woman who alleged that she was fired for seeking to pump breast milk while on the job. We suggested in our February 9, 2012 blog that in our opinion this decision was headed for the dustbin of history.

As if to echo this opinion, the EEOC just conducted a meeting yesterday to follow up on its issuance of a 2009 guidance entitled “Employer Best Practices for Workers with Caregiving Responsibilities.”  At yesterday’s meeting, experts noted that notwithstanding the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the FMLA, the number of pregnancy discrimination charges has spiked in recent years. One panelist argued that the EEOC should provide further guidance as to the rights of pregnant women and women who had given birth, to the end that employers be directed as to their duty to accommodate women “who require adjustments to work rules as a result of pregnancy or childbirth.” 

 

It would appear that it is only a matter of time until this occurs, and employers should anticipate this by including such reasonable accommodations in their practices and policies.       

"Lactation Is Not Pregnancy, Childbirth, Or A Related Medical Condition"

A Texas federal judge, has just held that a woman who claimed that she was fired for seeking to pump breast milk while on the job had no viable claim under Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination based upon pregnancy, childbirth or a related medical condition.   The title of this blog entry is a direct quote from the decision. 

The Court stated curtly that after plaintiff gave birth, “she was no longer pregnant and her pregnancy-related conditions ended."

 

To this blogger, an appeal seems likely, as well as a reversal or overturning of this holding.  

Employers May Not Require Applicants to Have a High School Diploma

The title of this blog may not be technically correct, but it is close to the truth.

 

The latest EEOC informal opinion letter addresses a question about whether students in Tennessee who have learning disabilities may be required to take certain tests as part of a requirement for a high school diploma.  Inexplicably, the letter veers off course and the EEOC has taken the opportunity to issue a pronouncement for employers who require applicants have high school diplomas.  This informal opinion letter is presumably meant to provide guidance but it falls woefully short of that goal. 

 

I have to admit that this informal opinion letter is old news since it was issued on November 17, 2011 and has appeared in countless blogs and new articles ever since.  When it first came out, I read it like everyone else did and planned a blog entry.  I got stuck when I tried to explain what this meant for employers.

 

The informal opinion letter sets forth the general requirements of any testing or standard used by employers -- is the test or standard consistent with a business necessity?  As the EEOC sets forth, an employer cannot require applicants have a diploma unless the employer can demonstrate that the skills required to obtain a diploma "accurately measures the ability to perform the job’s essential functions." 

 

So far, so good.  Then I got to the next part of the letter.  The EEOC went on to state that even if an employer can prove that the diploma is necessary to prove an applicant can perform the essential functions of the position, the employer may still need to make a reasonable accommodation for an applicant with a learning disability who was unable to obtain a diploma. 

 

Huh?

 

My confusion comes in because the ADA has been interpreted to state that an employer does not have to remove the essential functions of a position in order to accommodate an employee.  If an employer can demonstrate, as set forth in 29 CFR §1630.10, that having a high school diploma directly relates to whether an employee can perform the essential functions of a job, then how is the employer going to accommodate a learning-disabled applicant who cannot get a high school diploma? 

 

A more practical problem for employers is how will they know if an applicant does not have a diploma because of learning disability and thus may require an accommodation.  It is not as if an employer can ask that question during an interview.

 

Although the letter is not helpful for employers in the way the EEOC intended, it is helpful to signal a new enforcement policy that the EEOC may be applying.  It also should signal to employers that they should be very cautious before requiring any degree or diploma for a position. 

 (photo courtesy of gadgetdude)

You Better Not Have a Fishy Reason To Fire Someone Right After He Tells You He Has a Disabling Condition*

In our blog entry of March 29, 2011, we wrote about the logical fallacy known as “post hoc ergo propter” – believing that “temporal succession” implies a causal relation.  That is, the mere close or suspicious timing of two events does not necessarily lead to the logical conclusion that one event caused the other.   

In that entry we discussed a federal court decision, Loudermilk v. Best Pallet Co., where an employee’s firing took place just as he handed his boss a note opposing a discriminatory action. The Court stated that as a matter of law, this alone did not show causation for a viable retaliation claim, but the timing of the firing “could support an adverse inference by a reasonable trier of fact,” that is, the issue can be left to the jury, a not particularly auspicious outcome. The Court said that while suspicious timing may be merely suspicious, and no more, “[o]ccasionally, however, an adverse action [the firing] comes so close on the heels of a protected act that an inference of causation is sensible.” 

A federal court in Pennsylvania recently held, in Linhart v. Zitelli & Broadland P.C., that an employee who was fired only hours after informing the employer that he had a condition known as avascular necrosis and needed hip replacement surgery stated a viable claim under the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”) since he raised “a reasonable inference of discrimination.”   

*As the Loudermilk Court said it, “an employer who advances a fishy reason takes the risk that disbelief of the reason will support an inference that it is a pretext for discrimination.” 

 

Is Having "The Flu" a Disability?

It is now officially flu season. One may be unlucky enough to contract a simple seasonal flu (jnfluenza A), or really unlucky enough to contract a more serious flu such as the swine flu (from the H1N1 virus).

But is “the flu” a disabling condition under the ADA?

 

One federal court in Florida found that having the flu is not a disability. In Lewis v. Florida Default Law Group, the plaintiff employee was diagnosed with a seasonal flu but believed she had the H1N1 virus and so informed her employer. When she was terminated for excessive absences, she sued claiming that the real reason for her termination was that she had an “actual disability” and/or that she was regarded by her employer as having a disability.     

 

The Court rejected both claims and looked to the ADA and its amendments for the answer. The Court held that “the flu,” whether it was seasonal or swine, was not an actual disability since it is of short duration, and that although short duration conditions can be a disability if severe enough, the flu is nonetheless not of the severity described in the amendments. Nor, the court found, is it permanent but  “episodic,” such as cancer or epilepsy.

 

As to whether the employee was “regarded” by her employer as having a disability, the court similarly held that the employee’s objectively transitory and minor condition fell within an exception under the amendments, and therefore could not be “regarded as” an impairment.                      

But I Have a Prescription for That Marijuana, Dude . . .

    Several weeks ago, I saw an article on Gawker.com that a woman had accidentally got her colleagues high on pot brownies.  Apparently, her son had left them in the freezer and she was unaware that the secret ingredient was not extra chocolate chips. 

 

I keep thinking about this article, mostly because it makes me laugh to think about what that office must have been like that day and what my office would be like if something like that happened here. 

 

But that article also brings up an issue for employers -- does having a prescription for marijuana due to a disability trump an employer's anti-drug policies?  The answer is dependent on each state's medical marijuana laws.

 

As of this date, 16 states and Washington D.C. have medical marijuana laws.   New Jersey's law, which became effective in July 2011, has a specific provision that states that the law does not require an employer "to accommodate the medical use of marijuana in any workplace."

 

Delaware's law, on the other hand, affirmatively prohibits employers from discriminating against a registered qualifying patient "unless a failure to do so would cause the employer to lose a monetary or licensing-related benefit under federal law or federal regulations." 

 

What is especially problematic for Delaware employers is that an employer may not terminate an employee who is a registered qualifying patient and who tests positive for marijuana components or metabolites, unless the patient used, possessed, or was impaired by marijuana on the premises of the place of employment or during the hours of employment. 

 

Although the law gives employers an out if the employee is under the influence at work, practically speaking, this puts the employer in a tough spot in a wrongful termination suit.  In order to prevail in such a suit, an employer would have to introduce expert medical testimony regarding how marijuana metabolizes in the system to prove the employee was high at work and not four hours before reporting to work.  Let's face it -- that type of evidence can be very boring and complicated for a jury to understand.

 

As more and more states enact medical marijuana laws, employers would be wise to make sure they understand their obligations under the law before terminating an employee with a positive drug test due to the use of medical marijuana.

 

 

Is Having a Bashful Bladder a Disability? Or Merely a Problem at Halftime at Giants Stadium

Have you been in the situation where, for hiring purposes, you have to produce a urine sample as part of drug testing? Or been attempting to do what you need to do in a football stadium bathroom at halftime, with a line of impatient fans who having been drinking beer for hours pressed up behind you -- you hear their menacing mutterings and freeze up?  

The pressure on you is great, make no mistake about it.  But some unfortunate folks get anxious enough that their well springs dry up and they just can’t hack it.  Indeed, there may be 17,000,000 Americans suffering from this.

Paruresis

 

Paruresis” is what this syndrome is called – also known as “shy bladder” or “bashful bladder.”   It is, simply, a bladder that has performance anxiety when the pressure is on, whether in a public situation or with others around. It’s a bummer, to be sure, but is it a disability for purposes of the ADA if you are not hired because you can’t show a clean drug test because of it?  What “major life activity” is substantially limited by possessing a shy bladder – urinating in public? Drinking beer at a Giants game? Has anyone even considered the question?

 

I am pleased to say that the EEOC has, indeed, spent some time considering the issue, and has recently published an informal opinion letter from one of its counsel as to “whether paruresis is a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), and under the regulations implementing the ADAAA published by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on March 25, 2011.”

 

The EEOC, noting that paruresis is, in fact, considered an anxiety disorder, stated that affected individuals may be the subject of an adverse employment action if they cannot take the standard urine test for the detection of illegal drug use, and are refused alternative tests.  

 

Is Paruresis a “Disability?

 

As to whether it is a “disability,” one has to consider whether it is a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities (or if there is a record of such impairment) – to which the applicant or employee may be entitled to a reasonable accommodation. (Under the “regarded as” test – where the employer takes an adverse action because of an actual or perceived impairment that is not both transitory and minor, no accommodation is required).  

 

Under the 2008 amendments, a major life activity” includes major bodily functions, such as bladder and brain functions, and functions of the neurological and genitourinary systems. The EEOC stated that under the prevailing law and regulations, “substantially limits” is to be construed broadly and expansively, and now “requires a lower degree of functional limitation” than before -- an impairment does not need to prevent or severely or significantly restrict a major life activity to be considered “substantially limiting.”   

 

“Therefore, the determination of whether an individual’s paruresis substantially limits a major life activity is based on the limitations imposed by the condition when its symptoms are present (disregarding any mitigating measures that might limit or eliminate the symptoms).”

 

Accommodation

 

There are alternatives to urine testing for determining illegal drug use – hair, saliva, or a patch test may be used. But because, as noted above, under the “regarded as” test an applicant or employee is not entitled to a reasonable accommodation, for an applicant or employee to be entitled to this alternate testing, he/she must show that the paruresis “constitutes either an actual or record of disability.” Moreover, an employer may claim that an alternative drug test would cause an “undue hardship,” which, the EEOC concluded, “may include whether an alternative test is an effective means of determining current illegal use of drugs.”

 

 

Conclusion

 

The EEOC gives no definitive or clear answer to the question posed. Paruresis is not a designated “per se” disability under the law, but, says the EEOC, “[n]o negative inference should be drawn” from this, So to be entitled to a reasonable accommodation, a suffering individual must show an actual or record of disability. What this means is not altogether clear since the “bashful bladder” syndrome seems, to this med

ical layperson at least, to substantially impair a major life activity only when the urine testing is conducted.   No testing --- no “bashful bladder” symptoms.  

 

Indeed, by definition, a bladder is bashful only when it is required to perform when there are other people around.  (Although in some cases a person is able urinate only through the process of catheterization. In such a severe case, a person would seem more likely to be able to show a substantial impairment of a major life activity, at least according to the EEOC analysis).  

 

Stay tuned because we will no doubt see such a fact situation hit the courts soon enough and learn more. 

 

In any event, if you have a bashful bladder, at a minimum don’t drink beer at football games.   

 

How Reasonable Must an Employer Be to Reasonably Accommodate An Employee's Disability

The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) provides that an employer has impermissibly discriminated against an employee claiming a disability where the employer has not made “reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability.”  It has been held that an employee with a recognized disability who contends that he can perform the job “with a reasonable accommodation” has the prima facie burden of showing that the employer has refused the requested accommodation. If that occurs, the employer must persuade the court that such accommodation would create undue hardship.  

The law is clear that an employer to whom an employee raises the issue of a disability and requests a reasonable accommodation must engage in meaningful discussions with the employee as to the proposed accommodation. The EEOC reiterated recently that an employer has an “affirmative duty” to engage in this interactive process with the employee. 

 

To comply with this “affirmative duty,” an employer would be wise, therefore, to understand the employee’s medical situation, decide whether the employee can perform the job with a reasonable accommodation, and open communications with the employee to see if they can come up with a reasonable accommodation that does not create undue hardship.

 

A recent federal appellate case arising out of Connecticut is illustrative of just how far an employee can push to get a requested accommodation deemed reasonable. In Theilig v. United Tech Corp., the employee claimed because he suffered from severe depression, he needed to work from home for two months with “no direct person to person contact and definitely none with his previous co-workers.”   

 

The court noted that what is reasonable is determined on a case-by-case basis, but that there is a burden on the employee to show, at least facially, that the costs of the proposed accommodation do not clearly exceed it benefits.  In this case, stated the court, the employee did not meet this burden of showing that his was a reasonable accommodation, and, therefore, the employer was not required to engage in an interactive process with the employee.

Appeals Court Holds That Under the ADA, Although Pregnancy-Related Complications May Be A Disability, They Do Not Substantially Limit a Major Life Activity Since They Are of Short Duration

In a September 15, 2011 blog entry we noted that courts have recently held that renal cancer and claustrophobia are disabilities under the expanded definition of disability under the Americans with Disability Act (“ADA”).   On the other hand, another court has recently held that while pregnancy-related complications may be a disability under the ADA, nonetheless if they are temporary in nature they may not “substantially limit a life activity” and therefore may not, in fact, constitute a disability.   

After suffering a miscarriage, the employee in this case became pregnant again, and began to experience symptoms such as bleeding, which, her doctor advised her, could cause another miscarriage if she continued the strenuous activities which her employment position required her to perform to a degree. When the employer refused to consider a light-duty accommodation, her doctor directed that she should not work in any capacity and was “totally incapacitated.”  She was terminated.

 

The federal appeals court first noted that an amendment to Title VII prohibits discrimination “on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” as a form of gender discrimination.  However, in this case, the court found that the employee could not make out a prima facie case of such gender discrimination. Therefore, the court next took up the question as to whether the employee’s pregnancy-related complications rendered her disabled under the ADA.  

 

The court first found that most courts have held that “pregnancy, absent unusual circumstances, is not a physical impairment,” and that “unusual circumstances” in a pregnancy case has generally been found to be an abnormal pregnancy – one with complications arising out of, but distinguishable from the pregnancy itself. In this case, the court therefore stated, the employee’s condition “may support the inference that these complications were not the result of a normal pregnancy,” however, the court held that “even if the evidence supported that inference,” nonetheless “her physical impairment did not substantially limit a major life activity” – which the employee claimed was reproducing and lifting.   

 

Because pregnancy “is, by its very nature, of limited duration, and any complications which arise from a pregnancy generally dissipate once a woman gives birth,” the court held that the employee’s pregnancy-related complications did not substantially limit her from the major life activities of reproducing and lifting.         

Two Recent Cases Under the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA")

A court recently held that claustrophobia is a disability under the expanded definition of disability under the ADA.   Feshold v. Clark County.

Another court held that renal cancer is similarly a disability.  Norton v. Assisted Living Concepts.

EEOC Conducts Hearings on Leaves of Absence

Please visit our California Employment Law blog entry by our colleague Jeff Polsky for a discussion of the June 8, 2011 EEOC meeting at which there was a discussion of issues surrounding leave of absence as a reasonable accommodation for disabled employees.

Under the ADA, When Can an Employer Be Sure When A Person's "Current Substance Abuse" Has Ceased?

Under the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”), an employer cannot discriminate “against a qualified individual on the basis of disability.”   A person “currently engaging” in illegal substance use is not “qualified” under the ADA.  However, the ADA specifically exempts a person who, for example, has successfully completed a supervised drug rehabilitation program and is no longer engaging in the illegal use of drugs.

The question has often arisen for employers as to when a person is no longer engaging in the illegal use of drugs, since many people after completing a rehab program cease such use only to relapse, and it is not at all clear when a person is permanently “off” drugs as opposed to merely engaging in one episode after another.

 

A recent case discussed all the approaches taken by courts to answer the question which is asked by employers – when is it OK not hire such a person? The Court concluded that an employer should consider many factors – such as the severity of the problem, the relapse rate for the substance being abused, the level of responsibility given to the employee and level of competence required for the job, and past performance of the person.   

 

The central question that an employer must ask herself is - can we reasonably conclude that the substance abuse prevents the person from performing the essential functions of the employment position?    

Coffee Giant Fires Dwarf*

Starbucks inexplicably terminated the employment of an employee in a Texas store who suffers from dwarfism, and who had asked for a stepladder as an accommodation.  Starbucks refused to permit the employee to use a stepladder or stool to reach the cash register, claiming that it would be a danger to other employees.  Instead, it fired her when she made the request.

On May 11th,  the EEOC filed a lawsuit against Starbucks on behalf of the employee, seeking back pay and front pay (or rehiring), plus punitive damages, claiming a violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”).     EEOC v. Starbucks Coffee Co. 

 

(*Credit for this tabloid-like lede goes to Law360’s Richard Vanderford)

New website provides tools and information to employers hiring workers with disabilities

The ODEP's National Employer Technical Assistance, Policy, and Research Center (“the Center”) has launched a website to assist employers in the recruitment, hiring and retention of employees with disabilities.

A self proclaimed “one stop resource for private and federal employers seeking to recruit, hire, and retain qualified employees with disabilities,” the Center was established to provide free, confidential consultation, training, and support to assist employers in expanding their inclusion and diversity efforts by integrating employees with disabilities in the workplace.

The new website, furthers the Center’s goal of education and inclusion by providing among other things, links to sister organizations and a database of pre-screened student and recent graduates with disabilities seeking internships and/or permanent employment.

However, before you implement any policies or changes based on the information gather at this or any other website, please review it with counsel to ensure you are covering all the bases.
 

Should Employment Discrimination Based Upon Weight Be Illegal?

A recent commentator noted that according to surveys "weight bias" is widespread in employment, with some reporting that within the continuum of employees who were overweight to severely obese there was a 12 to 100 times more likelihood of discrimination.   Only one state - Michigan -outlaws weight discrimination in employment, as do a small number of municipalities.  

Some plaintiffs, as well as the EEOC, have also taken the position that weight discrimination may violate the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"), if, for example, the employee's weight substantially impairs a major life activity.  Moreover, it may be coupled with conditions caused or exacerbated by obesity, such as hypertension or diabetes, which have been held to be disabling.    

Another related area of the law that is still undeveloped is so-called "beauty bias," or "appearance discrimination" -- bias one way or another based upon appearance, which, again, surveys show exists in the workplace to a large degree.   More on that later!  

Should employment discrimination based upon weight or appearance be illegal? 

Please give us your comments!

 

An ADA Accommodation for a Disability Must Merely Be "Reasonable" and Not Perfect

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), a person with a disability (within the meaning of the ADA) must be given “reasonable accommodations,” unless the employer can show “undue hardship.” What is “reasonable,” and does it include every accommodation that an employee requests?   

 

In a recent case arising out of a federal appeals court in Virginia, Fink v. Richmond, the employee-teacher suffered terribly from a condition which required surgery in which her stomach replaced her esophagus under her throat, causing her to be unable to bend, lift any weight, eat a large meal, or to be inaccessible to a bathroom.   The school district reassigned her so that she did not have to lift or bend, had access to a nearby bathroom, could take short breaks and could eat snacks during her class periods.

 

The employee nonetheless claimed that she was not given reasonable accommodations because she was not, among other things, given a “fixed” classroom, as she requested.     

  

The court held that the teacher was indeed disabled. However, it ruled against her because, it said, the employer reasonably and sufficiently accommodated her disability, even if it did not accede to all her requests. The lower court stated that the teacher’s “objection … amounted to a mere job complaint,” and that the employer is “only required to offer a reasonable accommodation, not the perfect or [the employee’s] preferred accommodation.” The appeals court agreed, stating that the law does not “require that an employer provide a disabled employee with a perfect accommodation or an accommodation most preferable to the employee.”       

When Does a Disability Create a "Direct Threat" of Harm? Employers Face Big Risks in Arriving at the Wrong Answer

Enforcement of discrimination claims by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has increased, particularly in the areas of disability discrimination. This is due, in part, to the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act of 2008 which broadened the definition of a qualifying disability. On October 4, 2010, the EEOC issued a press release announcing that it had sued Maverick Country Stores alleging disability discrimination and retaliation.  The suit alleged that a bakery worker at the multi-state convenience store chain was terminated 13 days after the employer learned that the worker was HIV positive.

Although the Maverick case is in the early stages, it appears that one of the main defenses presented by the employer would be that the employee posed a direct threat of harm. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, an employer is required to make a reasonable accommodation for a disabled employee that would permit the employee to perform the essential functions of the job, unless doing so would cause an undue hardship.  One of the defenses to a disability discrimination claim available under federal regulations is if the employee poses a direct threat of harm to him or herself or another employee.  The regulations make clear, however, that an employee can only be terminated on account of posing a direct threat if that direct threat cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.  The regulations also caution that the determination of whether an employee poses a direct threat must be an individualized assessment as to whether the employee can presently safely perform the essential job functions.


One of the factors that a jury or judge may look at to determine what is an essential function of an employee’s job is to look at written job descriptions. Employers should continuously update job descriptions to address natural evolutions in the position. However, employers should be cautioned not to take a “kitchen sink” approach and simply include every possible job duty in the description as an essential position. If upon examination, it appears that non-essential functions are included as essential functions, it may be used as evidence of an attempt to weed out individuals with disabilities and be used as evidence against the employer in a disability discrimination case. Although there is no precise formula, when determining what is an essential function of the position, employers should look at how much time is spent performing each task and the consequence of not requiring the employee to perform the task.
 

10 Selected Highlights of the DOJ's Final Regulations on ADA Accessible Design Requirements

The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) recently published in the Federal Register final regulations (pdf) detailing new accessible design requirements for entities covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) (pdf).

The 2010 Standards will have a significant impact on entities that are open to the public, i.e. entertainment venues, museums, recreational facilities, restaurants, places of lodging, medical facilities, and schools (public and private). Specifically, covered entities must account for not only issues pertaining to physical design, but website and other technological equipment designed for customer service.

 

The 2010 Standards are effective March 15, 2011, six months after their publication in the Federal Register. However, covered entities are not required to comply with the 2010 Standards until eighteen months after the publication date — March 15, 2012. From September 15, 2010 to March 14, 2010, covered entities may choose to follow in their entirety either the 1991 or the 2010 Standards. But, as of March 15, 2012, all renovations, alterations and new construction must conform to the 2010 Standards. The applicable standard will be triggered by the date a covered entity submits an application for a building permit or, if no permit is required, by the start of physical construction or alteration.

 

Selected Highlights of the 2010 Standards

1. Clarification of covered facilities

A hallmark of the 2010 Standards is that they provide clarification and in some instances incorporate more facilities than their 1991 predecessor. For example, the 2010 Standards clarify their application to, and requirement for, among others:

• amusement rides: must be accessible and located on an accessible route;
• recreational boating facilities: boat slips and boarding piers must be accessible;
• exercise machines and equipments: at least one type of every exercise equipment must be accessible and positioned to enable use by a person with a disability;
• fishing piers and platforms: must be accessible, subject to the same exceptions for gangways;
• golf facilities: accessible routes or golf car passages to the course, rental areas, bag drop areas and one or two teeing grounds;
• miniature golf courses: at least fifty percent of all holes must be accessible and consecutive;
• play areas: now covered and must have accessible ground and elevated play components, routes, ramps, transfer systems, and accessible ground surfaces;
• swimming pools, wading pools, and spas: must have accessible means of entry/exit;
• saunas and steam rooms: must be accessible with appropriate turning space and an accessible bench.


2. Safe Harbor Provision
If a covered entity has built or altered an element in its facility in order to comply with the 1991 Standards, then it does not have to comply with the 2010 Standards until such time that the element again becomes a part of a planned alteration/renovation.

Note: Existing facilities that were not subject to, or not in compliance with the 1991 Standards, do not benefit from the Safe Harbor Provision.

 

3. Reach Range Requirements

The side reach range requirements is now 15 to 48 inches. This range applies to operable parts on accessible elements, elements on accessible routes, rooms and spaces.

 

4. Employee Work Areas

Subject to certain exceptions, employers must ensure that an employee using a wheelchair have access to their work area, and other common use paths within employee work areas.

 

5. Service Animals

A service animal is a dog (minor exception permits use of miniature horse). The dog must be “individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability” provided the “work or tasks performed by the service animal is directly related to the handler’s disability.” A dog that provides purely emotional support is not a service animal. However, individuals with mental disabilities who use dogs that are trained to perform a specific task are covered.
In addition, individuals accompanied by a service animal cannot be required to pay a surcharge for the service animal’s admission.

 

6. Reservations for Places of Lodging

Places of lodging must permit individuals with disabilities to make reservations for accessible guest rooms during the same hours and in the same manner as other guests; identify and describe accessible features in the hotels and guest rooms offered by their reservations services; and the accessible rooms must also be held for individuals with disabilities until all other guest rooms of that type have been rented. Accessible guest rooms must also be removed from all reservation systems to avoid inadvertent release to someone other than the person who reserved the room.

 

7. Timeshares, Condominium Hotels, and Other Places of Lodging

Timeshares and condominium properties that operate like hotels are subject to the 2010 Standards. These facilities are not subject to the reservation “hold back” requirement discussed above, nor the barrier removal and altercation requirements if the physical features of the respective room’s interiors are controlled by individual owners rather than by a third party operator. However, common areas in the overall facility containing the respective individually owned units must meet the 2010 Standards.

 

8. Assembly Areas

The scope of seating in large facilities has been altered such that under the 2010 Standards, facilities with 501 to 5000 seats must provide one additional wheelchair space for each additional 150 seats (or fraction thereof), and facilities with more than 5001 seats must provide one additional wheel chair space for each 200 seats over 5001.

 

9. Mobility Devices

A covered entity shall permit individuals using a manually powered aid (motorized and non-motorized wheelchair, walkers, crutches, canes etc) in any areas open to the public. The covered entity must also make reasonable modifications to permit access to individuals using other power-driven mobility devices (i.e. Segway®PT), unless the entity can demonstrate that the device cannot be safely operated in accordance with the regulation.

Note: A covered entity shall not ask an individual using a power-driven mobility device questions about the nature and extent of his/her disability. However, the entity may request proof that the motorized device is required, such as a valid state-issued disability placard, card or proof of disability, or “a verbal representation, not contradicted by observable fact.”

 

10. Water Closet Clearance in Single User Restrooms

The water closet must permit clearance for both a forward and a parallel approach, with further restrictions on the overlap of the lavatory and the water closet clearance.

 

Going forward, covered entities must audit their spaces and polices to ensure that they are in compliance with the 2010 Standards and/or maximizing the Safe Harbor Provisions. Nonetheless, although some entities will be able to operate under the 1991 Standards, be mindful that any future renovations, alterations or construction will require compliance with 2010 Standards. Finally, covered entities should retain documentation of all renovations and alterations conducted in an effort to conform with the 1991 and 2010 Standards.
 

Court Rules Night Vision Impairment May Constitute Disability Under the ADA

In a recent case coming out of the United States Court of Appeals in San Francisco entitled Livingston v. Fred Meyer Stores, Inc., No. 08-35597 (unpublished opinion 7/21/10), the Court ruled that a store wine steward whose visual impairment affected her ability to walk and drive after dark was considered an individual with a disability entitled to the protections afforded under the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”). The appeals court held that even if Livingston did not have any restrictions during the day time hours, her nighttime vision impairment prohibited her from performing the same tasks as an average person and, as such, she was “substantially limited in the major life activity of seeing” and the employer was required to accommodate such condition.

Livingston’s condition of “depth perception difficulties under low light conditions” made it difficult for her to walk or drive a vehicle safely after dark. As such, Livingston requested a modified fall and winter schedule that would allow her to work an earlier shift and minimize her driving after dark While her request was granted in 2005, it was denied when she made the same request a year later. When Livingston refused to comply with the schedule, she was terminated.

Employers should be aware that even if an employee’s medical condition on its face does not appear to restrict the employee’s job duties, it still could be considered a “disability” under the ADA requiring an accommodation. Employers should therefore evaluate an employee’s condition carefully, and request legal guidance on how to best handle an employee’s alleged disability.
 

Another Staffing Company Pays a Stiff Price for Not Training Its Managers and Employees

 

Our entry of June 29, 2010 reported on a staffing company (Spencer Reed) which entered into a “consent decree”  to settle a case filed by the EEOC under Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). On June 15, 2010, another staffing company similarly entered into a consent decree with the EEOC, in a case filed under the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”).  In EEOC v. Balance Staffing, N.D. Ill., No. 1:09-cv-6004, June 15, 2010, the EEOC claimed that the company hired Jocelyn Snower but that the offer was revoked when it discovered that she was blind.

As in the Spencer Reed consent decree, Balance Staffing not only made a cash payment to Ms. Snower, in this case in the sum of $100,000, but was also required to provide annual EEO training to all of the involved managers and human resources employees, and to report to the EEOC all future discrimination and retaliation complaints. 

 

Another expensive lesson learned too late -- the company should have practiced “preventive law,” and trained its managers and employees in advance.  

Employer's consistent application of its non-discriminatory policy helps it defeat ADA and Title VII claims

For years employers have been advised that if they apply their non-discriminatory and legitimate company policies and practices across the board, without exception, it will generally be much easier to defeat challenges to those practices. A recent case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Norman v. Union Pac. R.R. Co. (Nebraska), highlights this point. In that case, the employer had a standard policy that required all employees seeking to return to work from a long-term disability leave to submit a “return to work release” prior to resuming employment. The plaintiff, an African American woman sued the company under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, claiming that she was terminated because of her race, gender and her disability. The plaintiff argued that her termination was discriminatory because although she did not submit a return to work release, the company found a suitable position in the company for a similarly situated Caucasian male employee, while he was on leave, although he had a poor disciplinary history and inferior annual evaluations.

 

The court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the case finding that the employees were not similarly situated because the Caucasian employee submitted the required release while plaintiff did not. Therefore, the discrepancy in how the employees were treated had nothing to do with disability, race or gender but was a result of plaintiff’s non-compliance with the company’s rules.

 

This reaffirms the longstanding advice most employers have heard time and time again, from capable counsel--do not play favorites. Apply your non-discriminatory policies and practices equally across the board and you will be in a good position to defend against actions challenging your business policies and practices. Caveat: See Article on Disparate Impact Claims.
 

Can an Internet Gambling Addiction Be a Disabling Condition Under the ADA?

Did you know that the ripple effect from proposals made by the staid American Psychiatric Association could impact your workplace significantly?

Proposed changes to the venerable Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or the "DSM," which "discovers" new "abnormal behavior" every day, and which is the Bible for mental health professionals, as well as lawyers and courts who must diagnose and deal with the results of abnormal behavior, may "create" a whole new class of abnormal "addictive" behavior. Recall the Americans with Disabilities Act? In the future, an employer may have to be very careful not to take an adverse employment action against an unfortunate employee who suffers from a disabling internet gambling addiction. We will keep you posted.

Employer that didn't think out of the box, may have violated applicant's rights under the ADA

In a recent decision, the U.S. District Court of Minnesota ruled that a reasonable jury could find that an employer failed to provide a reasonable accommodation to a job applicant with a severe hearing impairment, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 as amended (pdf) (ADA).

 

The employer argued that the plaintiff is not protected by the ADA because his severe hearing impairment prevents him from using a workplace radio, which is a requirement of the positions to which he applied. The court disagreed ruling that a jury could find that with a reasonable accommodation, plaintiff could perform two outdoor mining positions to which he applied. The court in large part relied on the fact that the plaintiff had successfully performed similar duties with another employer for nine years without incident. Acknowledging the employer’s concern for the safety of its employees and the need for employees to be able to communicate with each other, the court nonetheless explained that other methods of communication were available and could potentially be used to get plaintiff’s attention i.e. written, hand signals, horns or more technological devices such as text-based devices.

 

This case underscores the need for employers to properly train their staff to address disability issues and requests for accommodations, even at the interview stage. It also illustrates that what is reasonable will change as technology advances and is made more readily available to employers. Therefore, employers must engage in a meaningful interactive process and think outside the box. What this means is you must ask questions, including, “What accommodation would allow you to do this job?” Then follow-up based on the response to that question to get a full picture of the employee’s disability as it relates to the job. This will place employers in a better position to evaluate the request and assess their ability to provide a reasonable accommodation. If in the end an employer cannot provide a reasonable accommodation then it will have contemporaneous records of the requested accommodation(s) and the steps taken to provide that accommodation, or prove that the requested accommodation would have caused an undue burden on the company.
 

4 Things that EEOC Commissioner Feldman's Appointment Means to Employers, the ADA & ADAA

On March 27, 2010, Chai Feldman was given a recess appointment to the post of Commissioner of the EEOC, and was sworn in on April 7, 2010. As an openly gay woman, much has been written about what Commissioner Feldman's appointment will mean for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights. However, often lost in the analysis is what Commissioner Feldman's appointment means to employers in light of her documented advocacy for protecting the rights of disabled employees.


As the former Legislative Counsel to the AIDS Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, Commissioner Feldman is credited with having played an integral role in the drafting of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and then as an advocate for the passage of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAA).
 

1. Tougher Enforcement of the ADA and ADAA

Make no mistake, Commissioner Feldman strongly believes in the ADA, the ADAA and what these laws mean to covered employees who wish to remain in the workforce. Expect the EEOC to start pushing employers to be more flexible and imaginative with respect to available means to accommodate an employee, think technology and think as broad as the New York City Human Rights law or New York State Human Rights law. That leads me to number 2.


2. Workplace Flexibility Will Be Emphasized by the EEOC

Most recently Commissioner Feldman served as the Co-Director of Workplace Flexibility 2010, where she worked to advance flexible workplaces and hours for employees. The EEOC is likely going to aggressively explore the boundaries of adjustments in employees' schedules, and alternate work cites i.e. telecommuting, as possible "accommodations" for an employee's disability.


3. Be Careful of What You Say in that Position Statement

Keeping the prior two points in mind, simply stating in that position statement, written one day before its due to the EEOC that the requested accommodation will cause an undue hardship to the business may come back to bite you.

4. Use the Interactive Process to Probe the Alleged Disability

All said, ensure that you are engaging in a very interactive process with the disabled employee. Ask probing questions to determine the extent of their alleged disability and their limitations with respect to the job. Then, THINK long and hard about what can be done to accommodate that employee. If all else fails, think what would Commissioner Feldman believe is reasonable.


However, as always, contact an employment attorney to discuss these issues before giving a written or off the cuff response to an accommodation request that may cause the EEOC to issue an unfavorable ruling against your company.


On that note, ladies and gentlemen, I am officially a blogger.