Helmerich & Payne to Pay $59,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit
Helmerich & Payne, Inc. (H&P), a Tulsa-based drilling contractor, will pay a former employee $59,000 to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
According to the EEOC's lawsuit, the oil contractor forced a derrick hand at H&P's Alice, Texas location off the job because he was taking prescribed medications to treat chronic pain associated with a degenerative disk condition. The company ultimately fired the derrick hand, even though he had been deemed fit to return to work by his doctor.
EEOC Sues McLane Foodservice for Disability Discrimination
McLane Foodservice, Inc., which supplies foodservice deliveries to fast-food chain restaurants, violated federal law by discriminating against an employee it believed to be disabled, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit.
According to the EEOC's suit, McLane refused to hire an applicant because it regarded him as disabled and because the applicant had a record of a disability. Failing to hire an employee because of a perceived disability, or for having a record of disability, violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. McLane Foodservice, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-02261) in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation voluntary settlement through its conciliation process. The agency's lawsuit seeks, among other things, monetary relief in the form of back pay, compensatory, and punitive damages, as well as a permanent injunction against further discrimination on the basis of disability.
"Refusing to hire someone simply because the employer perceives a disability is a violation of federal law," said Katharine W. Kores, district director of the EEOC's Memphis District Office, which has jurisdiction over Arkansas, Tennessee and portions of Mississippi. "The EEOC is committed to vigilantly combating disability discrimination."
Howard University Will Pay $35,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit
Howard University, a historically black university in the District of Columbia, will pay $35,000 and furnish significant equitable relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
The EEOC charged that Clarence Muse, who has diabetes that resulted in kidney failure, applied for and was interviewed for a protective services officer and protective services supervisor position with Howard University Hospital, a division of the university. During the interview, when asked about his shift preferences, Muse disclosed that he preferred the evening shift because of his dialysis schedule. Muse had over 40 years of experience as a police officer and security guard, including experience as a homicide detective and supervisor. According to the lawsuit, Howard University hired more than 40 security officers and supervisors but refused to hire Muse, despite his excellent qualifications, because of his disability.
Biased against the blind? Uber faces lawsuit
Independent Online
Uber Technologies must defend against a lawsuit accusing the popular ride-sharing service of discriminating against blind people by refusing to transport guide dogs, a federal judge ruled.
Hollow victory in ADA lawsuit reform
Merced Sun-Star
Legislation meant to help businesses repel some predatory lawsuits took a surprising step forward this week, but only after lawmakers bowed to disability activists and gutted Assemblywoman Kristin Olsen’s key goals.
Olsen put on a happy face after Tuesday’s 10-0 vote by the Assembly Judiciary Committee, calling it a “first step in the right direction.” She also acknowledged disappointment that the committee removed meaningful reform from her legislation, Assembly Bill 54, replacing key language with a small tax credit seen as inoffensive to reform opponents.
ADA “Direct Threat” Defense Just Got a Little Easier
JD Supra
The rights and protections afforded to those with disabilities by the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) are not without limitations. Accommodations for disabled employees must be reasonable, and the employee must still be able to perform essential job functions with an accommodation. Additionally, the employee’s disability cannot pose a risk to her- or himself or others in the course of job functions if that risk cannot be eliminated or reduced by a reasonable accommodation. This is known as the “direct threat” defense – adverse employment or hiring actions taken against an employee or applicant were done so to mitigate a direct threat to the safety of the employee or others.
Project Civic Access Agreement Madison County, New York
Disabilities in the workplace: Federal agencies release new resource guide for employers
HR.BLR.com
Recently, the White House announced the release of a resource guide to assist employers in recruiting, hiring, retaining, and promoting people with disabilities. The online guide is part of a federal “Curb Cuts to the Middle Class Initiative” through which federal agencies, including the EEOC, are working to increase employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities.
Psyched out—Preventing psychiatric injuries at work
HR.BLR.com
As an employer, it is your responsibility to provide a safe work environment for all employees, free from any hazards and complying with all state and federal laws. Health and safety in the workplace is about preventing work-related injury and disease. Many workers' compensation programs are designed to reward employers for proactively implementing safety programs that reduce the potential for physical injuries. Thus employers invest in designing an environment that promotes physical well-being for everyone at work.
Deal ends HIV-positive patient's discrimination suit against midstate coroner's medical practice
PennLive.com
A confidential settlement has ended a federal disability discrimination lawsuit a former HIV-positive patient filed against the private medical practice of Lancaster County Coroner Stephen Diamantoni.
DC University to Pay $35000 in Disability Discrimination Lawsuit
Campus Safety Magazine
Howard University will pay $35,000 to a man who applied to work for the school that was allegedly discriminated against because of his disability.
Lexology
The U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont recently issued an opinion analyzing the applicability of the Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to Scribd, a purely web-based digital library service. After an exhaustive survey of other courts’ analyses, the court ultimately found that a “place of public accommodation” does not need to be an actual, physical place. Instead, the court found that the ADA applies to goods and services that are available to the public but not necessarily at a physical place open to the public. While the court relied heavily on the opinion of the court in Nat’l Ass’n of the Deaf v. Netflix, Inc. (District of Massachusetts), its decision is inconsistent with the holdings of several district courts sitting in the Ninth Circuit that have required a “nexus” between the complained-of online service and an actual, physical place.
Jefferson County to pay $30000 to resolve ex-dispatcher's complaint
WatertownDailyTimes.com
Jefferson County has agreed to pay $30,000 to a former dispatcher who accused the county of denying her reasonable accommodation for a work-related medical condition.
Fort Worth sued for not accommodating group home under ADA
Fort Worth Star Telegram
The federal government is suing Fort Worth for failing to provide reasonable accommodations to the owner of a group home for recovering alcoholics and drug addicts, a protected class under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Shy bladder disability might require accommodation under state law (CCH Netnews)
Rejecting an employer’s attempt to assert the equitable defense of laches as a bar to an employee’s race-based harassment claim, a federal district court in Virginia found that despite waiting almost three years to first inform a supervisor of the alleged conduct, the employee raised fact issues as to the extent of prejudice her employer suffered. But, warned the court, if the facts at trial established that she unreasonably delayed in complaining and such delay prejudiced her employer, it would “craft the appropriate remedy to achieve equity.” The employer’s motion for summary judgment was denied ( Brink v McDonald, EDVa, April 14, 2015, Davis, M.).
Mental health parity journey continues on long and winding road (CCH Netnews)
Although progress is being made in achieving parity between mental health/substance use treatment and medical/surgical benefits, there’s a long way to go. That’s according to a report by the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI). The report was based on a survey of 2,720 consumers and an analysis of 84 insurance plans in 15 states.
In state law news: Revised FMLA definition of “spouse” not being enforced in Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska (CCH Netnews)
Consistent with a preliminary injunction imposed by federal court in Texas on March 26, the Department of Labor has confirmed that it will not be enforcing in Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Nebraska its final rule revising the definition of “spouse” under the FMLA to include employees in same-sex marriages.
Age and Disability: Know Your Rights
If you've been on the job market lately, you know that many employers are now required by law to include a question on the job application regarding disabilities. And while the application is required to list potential disabilities to make it easier to self-identify, any boomer that's still in the job market should pause and reflect, and perhaps even talk to a disability specialist, before checking the "NO" box.
Businesses named in federal lawsuit for ADA violations
WPEC
everal South Florida businesses can't figure out why they're the target of a federal lawsuit, claiming violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
EEOC issues proposed rules for employer wellness programs
Lexology
On April 20, 2015, the EEOC issued a notice of proposed revisions to its regulations under the Americans with Disabilities Act concerning employer wellness programs. The new regulations will not become effective until after the notice period ends on June 19, 2015, and a final rule is published. In the meantime, here’s what employers should know about the EEOC’s proposed rules for wellness programs:
- Wellness programs must be reasonably designed to promote health and prevent disease. The proposed regulations explained that a program satisfies this standard “if it has a reasonable chance of improving the health of, or preventing disease in, participating employees, and it is not overly burdensome, is not a subterfuge for violating the ADA or other laws prohibiting employment discrimination, and is not highly suspect in the method chosen to promote health or prevent disease.”
- Wellness programs must be voluntary. An employer may not require employees to participate in a wellness program, nor may an employer deny health insurance coverage or other benefits to employees for refusing to participate, except as part of an authorized, limited incentive that complies with the proposed regulations.
- Wellness incentives must be limited. The proposed regulations state that an incentive, whether in the form of a reward or a penalty, so long as the “maximum allowable incentive available under the program . . . does not exceed 30 percent of the total cost of employee-only coverage.” For example, if the total cost of coverage paid by both the employer and employee for self-only coverage is $5,000, the maximum incentive for an employee under that plan must be $1,500.
- Medical information must be kept confidential. Medical information obtained through a wellness program must be maintained as confidential, except as authorized by the ADA or as may be necessary to administer the health plan.
- Employers must offer reasonable accommodations for wellness programs. Absent undue hardship, employers are required to provide reasonable accommodations to enable disabled employees to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment, including participation in wellness programs. This includes reasonable accommodations that may be necessary to enable employees with disabilities to earn whatever financial incentive an employer wellness program offers.
Takeaway: Employers who offer wellness programs should review the EEOC’s notice of proposed rulemaking and provide comments on it before June 19, 2015, if they wish to do so. Because the proposed rules will likely be similar, if not identical, to the final rule that eventually will take effect, employers should also review their wellness programs to determine whether any changes may be necessary.
Lexology
In EEOC v. Ford Motor Co., No. 12-2484 (6th Cir. Apr. 10, 2015), a case we blogged about previously here and here, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld summary judgment in favor of Ford and against the EEOC in an Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”) failure to accommodate lawsuit. The Sixth Circuit held that the person on whose behalf the EEOC brought suit was not qualified within the meaning of the ADA because the accommodation proposed by the EEOC of allowing her to telecommute up to four days per week was unreasonable. The Sixth Circuit also held that the EEOC did not provide evidence sufficient to allow a trier of fact to find that Ford retaliated against the charging party for bringing an EEOC charge.
The Sixth Circuit’s ruling represents an important win for employers and a significant defeat for the EEOC as the Commission attempts to make telecommuting a reasonable accommodation option for more and more jobs.