C&A Tool Engineering Sued by EEOC for Disability Discrimination
C&A Tool Engineering Inc., a manufacturing-tooling company in Churubusco, Ind., violated federal law by failing to hire an applicant on the basis of a vision impairment, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed on March 31, 2016.
According to EEOC's suit, the applicant, an experienced and qualified machinist, applied and interviewed for a machinist position. Upon completion of the interview, the applicant was given a job offer conditioned on passing a physical examination. C&A Tool withdrew the job offer because the exam report referenced a vision impairment.
Failing to hire an individual due to a disability violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). EEOC filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division (EEOC v. C & A Tool Engineering, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-00111), after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. EEOC's lawsuit seeks back pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief, including a court order prohibiting C&A Tool from failing to hire qualified individuals on the basis of disability in the future.
"The ADA protects both job applicants and employees from disability discrimination," said Kenneth L. Bird, acting regional attorney of the Indianapolis District Office. "Employers cannot and should not consider impairments that do not affect job performance in their hiring decisions. EEOC will vigorously pursue cases where employers ignore this obligation."
Sixth Circuit rules against nurses' disparate treatment claims under the ADA
Legal News Line
A recent unpublished opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit put the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) front-and-center in a fight between commercial hospital operators and some health care professionals.
The plaintiffs in Lopreato v. Select Specialty Hosp. are two nurses who had been previously been found guilty of drug theft-related offenses and subsequently terminated, even though they had successfully completed various rehab programs, been re-certified and ultimately returned to work based on restricted licensure.
EEOC v. Flambeau, Voluntary Plans, the Insurance Safe Harbor, and the Future of Wellness Programs
The National Law Review
The benefits world was set abuzz late last year with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Flambeau, Inc., in which the Federal District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin upheld the validity of Wisconsin-based plastics manufacturer Flambeau, Inc.’s wellness program in the face of a challenge by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). We provided the details of the case in an earlier post. The EEOC has since appealed the lower court’s decision to the Seventh Circuit. An earlier appellate case, Seff v. Broward County, 691 F.3d 1221 (11th Cir. 2012) reached a conclusion similar to Flambeau.
Ex-Amtrak employee OK'd to pursue retaliation claims
Chicago Daily Law Bulletin
A former Amtrak employee who alleges he was fired for reporting a bedbug infestation on a passenger car got the go-ahead to pursue a claim under the Federal Rail Safety Act.
In a written opinion, U.S. District Judge Milton I. Shadur rejected the argument that Narcissus J. Lillian’s decision to bring a separate claim against Amtrak under disability-discrimination law blocks him from bringing an FRSA claim as well.
Lillian, who is diabetic, alleges in a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act that he was fired for occasionally seeking a lunch break in order to maintain his glucose levels.
Man says firing was violation of disability law
The Pennsylvania Record
A man is suing two companies, alleging he was wrongfully terminated after wearing a doctor-prescribed walking boot to work.
Charles Hall filed a lawsuit on March 22 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Gemini Plastics Inc. and Labor Ready Northeast Inc., citing violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Man alleges that Boomtown Casino is not compliant with the ADA
The Louisiana Record
A disabled resident of Orleans Parish alleges that The Boomtown Casino in Harvey is not up the American with Disabilities standards and seeks help from the court.
Wellington Ratcliff Jr. filed a complaint for declarative relief on March 29 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against Louisiana-I Gaming LP and Pinnacle Entertainment Inc. for alleged violations of the ADA.
California Ruling On Website Accessibility Under The ADA May Lead To More Litigation
JD Supra
A recent decision out of a California superior court (Davis v. BMI/BND Travelware) ruled that a website operator was liable to a visually-impaired plaintiff for operating a website that was not accessible under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). This suit, combined with a lack of binding guidance from regulators, may lead to an increase in litigation regarding website accessibility. In particular, any site associated with any retail or brick-and-mortar facility will be in the crosshairs.
Website accessibility case shows big risks to companies
Lexology
We have reported previously on the emerging trends in litigation over website accessibility. Briefly, Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires accessibility for disabled persons to places of public accommodation. Increasingly, disabled persons are pursuing litigation or threats of litigation, arguing that a company’s website which provides access to goods and services must be accessible under the ADA. The law remains somewhat unsettled. Federal courts have reached varying conclusions on the question of whether websites are places of public accommodation and, if they are, what steps are required to make them accessible under the ADA. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) takes the position that websites are places of public accommodation. DOJ has promised to issue guidance on specific steps needed to comply. Although DOJ’s ADA compliance guidelines were initially expected in April, 2016, DOJ has pushed the expected ADA compliance guideline timeframe to 2018.
FOX21News.com
The Rocky Mountain ADA Center has launched a campaign to get people to stop saying the H word. What H word? “Handicapped.”