Mueller Industries Settles EEOC Class Disability Discrimination Lawsuit For $1 Million
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today the simultaneous filing and settlement of a disability discrimination lawsuit against a global metal goods manufacturer, Memphis-based Mueller Industries, Inc., which has agreed to pay $1 million and other injunctive relief.
According to the EEOC, Mueller Industries violated federal law by engaging in systemic discrimination against employees with disabilities. The EEOC charged that the company terminated employees and/or failed to provide reasonable accommodations for those exceeding its maximum 180-day leave policy. The EEOC also said that Mueller Industries violated federal law by implementing an attendance policy that assigned points to employees' absences, regardless of reason. Effectively, once a certain number of points were accumulated, the employee was terminated.
Such conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (U.S. EEOC v. Mueller Industries, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-05729-FW-GJS) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation agreement through its conciliation process. To resolve the case, the parties have entered into a two-and-one-half-year consent decree, which provides for $1 million in monetary relief and broad injunctive relief.
Court Says Full-time Work Is Not an Essential Function of Every Full Full-time Job
Workforce Management
Is an employer required to permit a disabled full-time employee to work a reduced work schedule as a reasonable accommodation?
In Hostettler v. The College of Wooster [pdf], the 6th Circuit concluded that it depends on the specific position, and that an employer risks violating the ADA by declaring full-time work as an essential function of a position without analyzing the actual need for full-time work for that position.
Pregnancy-Related Restroom Breaks May Be Protected Under ADA and Not Title VII
Lexology
Claiming that frequent restroom breaks were required by a pregnancy-related medical condition, a former employee’s claims were allowed to proceed under the Americans with Disability Act, but not Title VII. In Wadley v. Kiddie Academy International, Inc., plaintiff alleged that the employer discriminated against her because of a pregnancy-related disability by discharging her for leaving a classroom “out of ratio” when she left to use the restroom. Upon learning of her pregnancy, the worker advised the employer of her previous miscarriage due to frequent urinary tract infections and provided a doctor’s note stating she frequently would need to use the restroom. During one work day, she was the only individual assigned to a room. She asked for help so she could use the restroom. Eventually, a co-worker came to offer coverage so plaintiff could leave to use the restroom. Despite that coverage “accommodation”, she was discharged for leaving the classroom “out of ratio” when she left to use the restroom.
Plaintiff filed suit under the ADA and Title VII, but her lawsuit was dismissed under Title VII since there was no showing that men were treated more favorably than this female plaintiff. However, under the ADA a contrary ruling was rendered even though the ADA generally provides that pregnancy is not a disability. While the condition is not a covered one, related medical conditions may be subject to ADA protection said the trial court. Under many states’ and cities’ fair employment practices laws, a similar denial can be expected. As such, employers should engage in the interactive process, and seek to provide reasonable accommodation, unless the requested accommodation clearly creates an undue hardship.
Pulmonary Specialists of Tyler, Texas accused of violating ADA
Legal News Line
The federal government has filed a lawsuit against a Texas sleep health practice for allegedly firing an employee based on her responses to a medical questionnaire.
The U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) has filed a lawsuit against Pulmonary Specialists of Tyler and Sleep Health claiming the practice violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when it required employees to fill out a medical questionnaire and then fired Angela Abler just three days after she turned in the questionnaire on which she stated she had a previous on-the-job injury resulting in back surgery and a partial disability rating.
The EEOC argues the employee's previous surgery and disability did not affect her work as a billing/collections specialist and that she was discriminated against for her record of a disability.
"Employees who are able to perform the essential functions of their job cannot be terminated just because they previously suffered limitations from a physical impairment or underwent a medical procedure that the company speculates might be disabling," EEOC supervisory trial attorney Suzanne Anderson said in a statement. "Ms. Abler was able to perform all of the work of her job as Billings and Collections Specialist at the time she was employed."