U.S. Complaint Harris County, Texas
This action is brought by the United States to enforce Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12134, and its implementing regulation, 28 C.F.R. Part 35, against Harris County, Texas, acting through its Clerk. Harris County is responsible for selecting facilities to be used as polling places for federal, state, and local elections and for overseeing the County’s voting program. Harris County has violated the ADA by failing to provide a voting program that is accessible to persons with mobility and vision disabilities.
DOJ: Harris County isn't providing adequate access to disabled voters
Houston Chronicle
Harris County violated federal law by not making polling locations accessible to voters with disabilities in a special election held earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Justice alleged in a lawsuit filed Thursday.
EEOC Sues Hospital Over Flu Shot Dispute
Mondaq News Alerts
In its continuing effort to press employers to accommodate workers under a variety of circumstances, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently sued a Massachusetts hospital over its flu shot policy. The June 2, 2016 lawsuit alleges that Baystate Medical Center violated an employee's rights by requiring her to either get a flu shot or wear a facemask over her nose and mouth while working.
The EEOC does not allege disparate treatment, apparently conceding that all hospital employees are subject to the same policy. Instead, the controversy appears to focus on whether the hospital unlawfully failed to reasonably accommodate the sincerely held religious beliefs of Stephanie Clarke, a human resources employee.
The controversy once again highlights the importance of documenting a thorough, interactive exchange with employees requesting workplace accommodations, whether the requests are based on religion or presented as a plea for accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC's position sounds a warning for all employers that denial of an accommodation request may spark official scrutiny and second-guessing.
Drawing the Line on Leave Policies for Employees With Disabilities
JD Supra
Within the past three months, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has secured nearly $9 million from companies that have committed violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by discriminating against and firing employees with disabilities who requested medical leave or exhausted their allotted medical leave to address those disabilities.
Appeals Court delivers rare win for Hansmeier
Minnesota Lawyer
Exactly one month after Paul Hansmeier agreed to an indefinite suspension of his law license — and hot on the heels of the enactment of a new law aimed at curtailing the sorts of disability access lawsuits that are Hansmeier’s specialty — the Minnesota Court of Appeals handed the embattled attorney a rare victory.
EEOC: Medical Leave Request Initiates ADA Obligations
SHRM
An employee's request for Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) time off automatically triggers an employer's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) obligations, even absent a specific request for reasonable accommodation, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) argued in a brief in a case that the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to decide soon.
Regardless of whether the EEOC's argument is held to be correct, management attorneys recommend that employers consider FMLA rights first as they are an absolute entitlement; the ADA's reasonable accommodation duty is instead determined on a case-by-case basis.
Higher ed faces ADA challenges over accessibility of university websites
Lexology
Websites are vitally important to institutions of higher education for a variety of reasons. They serve as a real-time brochure for prospective students, provide important academic and administrative resources to students and faculty, and share a university’s news, events, and research with a worldwide community. But if those websites are only geared toward sighted readers, institutions could face legal challenges under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
'You quit' + 'No, I didn't!' = jury trial
HR.BLR.com
…… there's risk associated with asking an employee whether he has "personal problems" and suggesting that he get help through your EAP. The ADA protects not only employees who are actually disabled but also those who are perceived as being disabled………
Guidance for employers on the Zika virus
JD Supra
As with many areas of employment law, what appear to be common-sense solutions may run afoul of various employment laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VII, and the Occupational Safety and Health Act.
Do not require return-to-work medical examinations for employees who have traveled to an area with a Zika outbreak. Under the ADA, a medical examination of a current employee is allowed only if it is job-related and consistent with business necessity (and in a few other limited circumstances that will probably not apply to Zika travel). All of the evidence presented by the CDC so far indicates that Zika does not spread through casual employee-to-employee interactions such as handshakes, or use of the same water cooler. As a result, even if an employee travels to a Zika-infected area, and even if he is infected by the virus, there is not a sufficient reason to believe that he would represent a direct threat to other employees through the type of casual contacts typical in an employment relationship. Without such a direct threat, there is no business necessity to justify requiring an employee returning from a Zika-infested area to undergo a medical examination before returning to work.
Do not impose quarantines on employees who have traveled from Zika-infested areas. Because public health agencies have not taken steps to isolate or quarantine individuals who have traveled from these areas, employer efforts to do so could result in potential liability under the ADA, medical privacy laws, and possibly even under Title VII prohibitions on national origin discrimination.
Do not ban pregnant employees, employees who are considering becoming pregnant, or male employees with pregnant partners from traveling to Zika-infested areas. Just as employers may not prohibit pregnant employees from performing duties that (based on an employer’s judgment) present a risk to the employee or her unborn child, employers may not make decisions for their pregnant employees based on the risk of Zika infection. On the other hand, we know that in some cases, employers are required to accommodate employees on the basis of their pregnancy. If a pregnant employee asks to be excused from travel to a Zika-infested area for a work-related task, the employer should seriously consider granting such an accommodation. In fact, some employers are permitting all of their employees to opt out of work-related travel to Zika-infested areas.
Do not discipline employees who refuse to work in a Zika-infested area where those employees have an objectively reasonable belief that working in the area would subject them to an imminent threat of serious illness. It is unlikely that an employee could establish such an objective belief because of the ability to take precautions to prevent infection. However, employers should not rush to discipline employees who raise such concerns.