Settlement Agreement: Dekalb Regional Crisis Center
Technical Assistance Document: Protecting the Rights of Parents and Prospective Parents with Disabilities | PDF
Lexology
A depressed employee who was fired for threatening to kill his co-workers was not a qualified individual entitled to protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act, as the employee could not perform essential job functions, with or without an accommodation, a federal appeals court in San Francisco has ruled, affirming judgment in favor of the employer. Mayo v. PCC Structurals, Inc., No. 13-35643 (9th Cir. July 28, 2015). The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction over Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.
Kansas worker's ADA claims grounded before takeoff
HR.BLR.com
A federal court in Kansas recently dismissed an employee's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claims despite findings by the Kansas Human Rights Commission (KHRC) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that there was reasonable cause to believe the employer discriminated against him on the basis of his disability. Read on to find out why the court grounded the employee's ADA claims before they could take off to a jury.
Court says firm looked for excuses to fire disabled worker
Business Insurance
A U.S. appeals court has reinstated an Americans with Disabilities Act discrimination charge in a case where a company official allegedly sought reasons to fire a worker after he had already decided to terminate her because of her disability.
JD Supra
Earlier this year, the Department of Justice (DOJ), which enforces the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) alongside the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), sued the University of Michigan regarding the school’s policy that required a disabled employee (or any employee) to be the best qualified for a vacancy when seeking reassignment to accommodate the employee’s disability. The DOJ’s position is that such a policy is a per se violation of the ADA and that the ADA merely requires that a disabled employee who needs a reassignment be qualified, not the “best qualified.” Phrased differently – and contrary to most employers’ hiring practices – a qualified disabled employee must receive preference for a job opening for which they are qualified, even if there is a better qualified applicant, according to the EEOC and the DOJ. On July 22, 2015, the DOJ and the school settled the lawsuit for nearly $215,000 and other equitable relief. This case serves as a reminder to employers to be familiar with the EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance on reasonable accommodations, which explain and give examples of when reassignments and transfers may be reasonable accommodations (among answering other important ADA questions). Some courts - including the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in an ADA case brought by the EEOC against United Airlines - have accepted the EEOC's interpretation of the ADA on this point, while other appellate courts have to adopt the EEOC's position. Nevertheless, employers should be mindful of the EEOC's position on this issue when considering whether or not they are required to reassign a disabled employee to an open position.
Fleet Agrees to Settlement in Driver Discrimination Case
Today's Trucking News
A provider of cross-border trucking, Celadon Trucking Services Inc., has agreed to an out of court settlement paying $200,000 over a driver disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
The suit alleged that the company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits employers from subjecting applicants to medical examinations before making a conditional offer of employment and discriminating against applicants based on disability or perceived disability.
In late June a U.S. federal judge ruled that Celadon violated the ADA by conducting unlawful medical inquiries and examinations of applicants for over-the-road truck driving positions.
The court also determined that there were sufficient facts to support a finding that two of the class members were qualified for the truck driving position, but Celadon unlawfully dismissed them from driver orientation program because of their disabilities in violation of the ADA.
In addition to paying $200,000 in monetary damages to the 23 former Celadon applicants involved in EEOC's lawsuit, the settlement, requires that the company train its management employees on disability discrimination, post a notice of non-discrimination at its work site, submit annual reports detailing its compliance with the decree, and furnish other non-monetary relief, including inviting qualified class members to attend the company's driver orientation program.
The terms of the consent decree last for five years.
"The law is clear: Celadon cannot subject applicant drivers to disability-related inquiries and medical examinations without first extending to these applicants a conditional job offer," said Laurie A. Young, regional attorney of the Indianapolis district office of the EEOC. "Celadon's policies must conform to the requirements of the ADA. We are satisfied that this settlement serves the public interest and we are confident that the relief obtained will prevent the recurrence of this type of discrimination."
Disabled? You're hired. Not disabled? Pretend you are.
San Diego Reader
Federal government investigates Pride Industries
Does a nurse have legal recourse after her job was filled while she was on a leave of absence?
Nurse.com
Dear Nancy,
I was put on an LOA for depression and anxiety in large part because of harassment from my director. I have contacted human resources twice regarding my desire to file a grievance against her. I was protected under FMLA for my leave for eight weeks. When I was released to come back to work, my physician wrote me restrictions for part-time work for three weeks as to not be overwhelmed at first. I normally work 12-hour OR shifts. My director said she could not accommodate me for those three weeks, which forced HR to put me on an extended leave, non-FMLA protected. Since then, my director posted and filled my job. I am now being told I have 30 days to obtain another position in the system or terminate my employment. I feel I am being treated unfairly because of wanting to file a grievance against my director. Do I have any legal recourse?