SoftPro to Pay $80,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit
SoftPro, LLC, a Delaware software company headquartered in Raleigh, N.C., will pay $80,000 and provide other relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.
According to the EEOC's lawsuit, Matthew Elliott worked for SoftPro in an IT position at the company's Raleigh headquarters. Elliott, an individual with a record of opiate addiction, participated in physician-supervised medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for the addiction since 2009. In February 2017, Elliott took leave from SoftPro and voluntarily admitted himself to an inpatient treatment facility to eliminate the need for MAT. Elliott successfully completed the inpatient treatment and returned to work. Upon his return to work, Elliott was questioned by SoftPro about the purpose of his leave. Elliott disclosed his recent participation in a treatment program to eliminate his need for ongoing MAT. SoftPro fired Elliott on Feb. 27, 2017 because it perceived him as disabled, the EEOC said.
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which protects employees and applicants from discrimination based on their disabilities, including perceived disabilities and records of disabilities. The EEOC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division (EEOC v. SoftPro, LLC, Civil Action No. 5:18-cv-00463) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. Thereafter, Elliott joined in the suit individually with his own counsel.
In addition to the $80,000 in damages, the three-year consent decree settling the lawsuit requires that SoftPro revise, implement and distribute personnel policies to state that the company does not exclude employees based on their participation in a medication-assisted treatment program. The company must also provide annual training to its human resources team, managers, supervisors, and employees; post a notice to employees relating to the settlement; and report to the EEOC all negative employment actions the company takes against employees who have a record of substance abuse disorder or who are currently participating in, or have successfully completed, a drug rehabilitation program.
"Employees in recovery and actively participating in treatment should not fear losing their jobs," said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney of the EEOC's Charlotte District Office. "The EEOC will continue to litigate cases where people with disabilities are terminated based on fears and assumptions about the work they can perform."
Would-be deputy, HIV-positive, suing over lost job offer
A January trial date has been set in a lawsuit accusing a Louisiana sheriff of rescinding a job offer to an applicant who is HIV-positive.
William Pierce sued Iberia Parish Sheriff Louis Ackal and two captains last year, saying they violated the federal Americans with Disabilities Act. The suit says Ackal's office offered Pierce a job as a deputy in 2012, but rescinded the offer after a required physical examination showed he was HIV-positive.
The Acadiana Advocate reports a federal judge in Lafayette rejected a motion Thursday to declare the sheriff liable in the case. However, U.S. District Judge Michael Juneau made it clear his decision was not based on the case's merits, but on Ackal's unavailability to answer pre-trial questions.
Juneau scheduled a trial for Jan. 6.
Miniature HORSES can now travel as service animals on domestic flights according to new rules - as they join a bizarre list of pets that passengers have bought onto planes
- US Department of Transport has published new guidelines allowing disabled passengers to bring miniature horses on flights
- Airlines could now face fines if they block travelers from bringing the pets onto planes if they are designated as 'service animals'
- Traveling with 'emotional support animals' has exploded in popularity in recent years, with ducks and kangaroos accompanying owners on flights
- However, airlines have begun cracking down on several bizarre species boarding their planes
- Last year American Airlines banned emotional support insects, goats, and hedgehogs from flying with their handlers
Your Business's Website May Be Unusable to the Blind
- Two-thirds of blind individuals' transactions over the internet are abandoned due to their inability to access parts of a website.
- Blind internet users regularly make multiple calls to customer service about accessibility issues, but, ultimately, are forced to visit a competitor's website.
- E-commerce accounts for more than half a trillion dollars of U.S. retail revenues – of which $10.3 billion originates from the visually impaired.
Substance abuse & the ADA: What’s tripping up firms now
With so many employers focused on how the legalization of medical and/or recreational marijuana might affect them, it’s understandable that companies may be less adept at dealing with worker drug and alcohol use.
But the truth is, mishandling these situations can get you in as much legal trouble as not complying with your state’s marijuana laws.
Are Employers Required To Accommodate Medical Marijuana?
Medical marijuana has finally arrived. Over 53,000 Ohio residents have applied for and received medical marijuana cards. Ohio’s first dispensaries have opened and begun selling marijuana recommended by physicians for the treatment of 21 different medical conditions, including common conditions such as cancer and chronic pain.
How should an employer handle an employee who is legally permitted to use medical marijuana?
The answer for employers in Ohio is clear, at least for now. Employers may still implement drug testing, drug-free workplaces, and zero tolerance policies. Ohio law does not require employers to accommodate employees or job applicants’ use, possession, or distribution of medical marijuana. An employer can discharge, discipline, or refuse to hire an employee because of his or her medical marijuana use. Ohio law even denies unemployment benefits to employees who use medical marijuana in violation of a workplace policy.
Federal law is also straightforward. Marijuana is illegal under federal law and a Schedule 1 controlled substance. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) does not protect employees’ use of medical marijuana because it is an illegal drug. Federal courts have consistently held the ADA does not require employers to permit employees’ use of medical marijuana as a reasonable accommodation. The Drug-Free Workplace Act also requires federal contractors and federal grantees to guarantee drug-free workplaces as a condition of receiving government contracts and grants. Businesses that employ individuals subject to federal regulations, such as DOT regulated drivers, must also maintain a drug-free workplace policy.
However, the issue of whether employers must accommodate medical marijuana in states outside Ohio is becoming increasingly complicated. Eleven states have legalized the recreational use of marijuana, while over 20 other states have legalized medical marijuana in some form. Most states have laws that are like the ADA and require employers to reasonably accommodate qualified employees with disabilities. For that reason, courts are increasingly being asked to decide whether an employer must accommodate medical marijuana under state law.
Recent court decisions, particularly from the east coast, have expanded the rights of employees that legally use medical marijuana. Courts in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island have recognized that an employer may be obligated to accommodate employees who use medical marijuana while off duty by making an exception to the employer’s drug-free workplace policy. Other states, such as Arizona and Nevada, have passed legislation prohibiting discrimination against employees based on their use of medical marijuana. One federal court in Arizona recently held that an employer violated state law when it terminated an employee for failing a drug test because it could not establish that the employee was under the influence of marijuana while at work.
The key takeaway from these decisions is that employers with operations in multiple states must stay abreast of changing marijuana laws. Employers should re-examine their drug-free workplace policies and evaluate whether these policies comply with state disability discrimination and leave laws. No law prohibits employers from firing an employee who is under the influence of marijuana while at work. However, given the trend in recent state court decisions, employers may want to consider moving away from zero- tolerance drug testing policies and toward a policy that accommodates employees who legally use medical marijuana while off duty.
United States: Plaintiff Robles Files His Opposition To Domino's Petition For Certiorari
The Supreme Court will decide whether to hear its first website accessibility case now that briefing on Domino's Petition for Certiorari is complete.
Earlier today, Plaintiff Guillermo Robles filed his opposition to Domino's request to the U.S. Supreme Court for review of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal's decision to let Robles's lawsuit against Domino's proceed to discovery. Robles, who is blind, sued Domino's alleging that its website and mobile app are not accessible to the blind, in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The district court dismissed the lawsuit at the outset of the case, finding that the lawsuit violated Domino's due process rights because there are no regulations setting accessibility standards for accessible websites or mobile apps of public accommodations. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the ADA does cover websites of public accommodations with brick and mortar locations and Domino's due process rights would not be violated by the lawsuit. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to district court for discovery and other proceedings.
Domino's filed a Petition for Certiorari in which it argued, among other things, that there is a split among the Circuit Courts of Appeals with regard to the application of the ADA to websites. Today, Robles responded by pointing out that there is no such split among the circuits when it comes to websites of businesses that have a physical locations where they serve customers. Robles also argued, not surprisingly, that the Ninth Circuit's decision was correct and no review by the U.S. Supreme Court is necessary.
Domino's Wants Supreme Court To Limit Disabilities' Rights Law
For years, website operators have battled activists in court over whether the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to the internet.
Now, the pizza chain Domino's, backed by the Chamber of Commerce, is asking the Supreme Court to limit the reach of the landmark disabilities' rights law.
“Companies across every industry are battling website-accessibility lawsuits with no consistent message from the courts on whether or how to comply,” Domino's writes in papers filed recently with the Supreme Court. “This Court should intervene immediately so that Congress, not the courts, can decide whether or how to extend the statute it passed in 1990 to the Internet.”
Domino's is asking the Supreme Court to review a ruling issued in January by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that companies with a physical presence as well as an online presence must take steps to make their web sites and mobile apps accessible to people with disabilities.