Statement of Interest: National Federation of the Blind of California v. Uber Technologies, Inc. | PDF
Settlement Agreement: County of Erie NY and the Erie County Sheriff’s Office
The DOJ announces another settlement under its barrier-free health care initiative
Lexology
The U.S. Department of Justice Department announced a settlement with Franciscan St. James Health (St. James), requiring that patients and companions who are deaf or hard of hearing receive sign language interpreters and other services necessary to ensure effective communication, in compliance with Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Under the agreement, St. James will pay $70,000 in damages to a patient who is deaf who was allegedly denied a sign language interpreter throughout her four day stay in the hospital. The settlement also requires that St. James provide auxiliary aids and services, including sign language interpreters, to people who are deaf or hard of hearing within prescribed time frames and free of charge; designate an ADA Administrator; use their grievance resolution systems to investigate disputes regarding effective communication with deaf and hard of hearing patients; post notices of their effective communication policy; and train hospital personnel on the effective communication requirements of the ADA. The settlement is part of the Department’s Barrier-Free Health Care Initiative, a partnership of the Civil Rights Division and U. S. Attorney’s offices across the nation to enforce the requirement under Title III of the ADA requirement that people with disabilities, including those who are deaf or hard of hearing, who have HIV, or who have mobility disabilities, have equal access to medical services.
Bank of America to Pay $110000 to Resolve EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit
The National Law Review
Bank of America will pay $110,000 to a former temporary worker and provide other equitable relief under a consent decree resolving a disability discrimination case brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.
The EEOC alleged that Bank of America failed to accommodate a visually impaired data entry worker and instead terminated his temporary assignment at one of the bank's branches in downtown Chicago after one day on the job.
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires that employers provide reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities. This can include making adjustments or modifications in the workplace that enable an employee with a disability to perform the essential functions of his job. For example, an employer may be required to provide screen magnifying software that would enable an employee with a visual impairment to perform essential computer work. Questions and answers about blindness, visual impairments and the ADA are available on the EEOC's website.
The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Bank of America, N.A., Civil Action No. 11-cv-6378, September 13, 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois), after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. U.S. District Judge Milton I. Shadur entered the decree resolving the suit December 18. In addition to monetary relief for the former employee, the decree includes an injunction requiring the bank provide reasonable accommodations to temporary and contingent workers at its branches throughout Illinois, provides for training about the ADA's requirements and imposes recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the duration of the decree.
"Of the millions of working-age Americans with vision loss, research has shown that fewer than half are employed, An employer of the size and sophistication of Bank of America, which employs an enormous number of people working at computer terminals, ought to be a national leader in employing individuals with disabilities, including vision loss, and a leader in ADA compliance generally," said John Hendrickson, EEOC Chicago district regional attorney. "We're optimistic that this consent decree is going to prompt that kind of progress at Bank of America, not only because it's the law, but also because it's the right thing to do."
Sony to Pay $85,000 under Decree Resolving EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit
The employee had been sent by Staffmark Investment LLC, a staffing agency, to inspect Sony televisions on a temporary basis at a facility located in Romeoville, Ill. According to the EEOC, on the employee's second day on the job, a Staffmark employee approached and removed the employee from the worksite, explaining that there were concerns she would be bumped into or knocked down.
No need to accommodate 'disabled' worker who misses mandatory drug test
Business Management Daily
Employees who are not qualified for their jobs can’t claim ADA protection based on disability. And when a disabled employee has a position that’s covered by Department of Transportation (DOT) federal drug testing requirements and refuses a drug test, he’s automatically unqualified because DOT regulations require his suspension.
Recent case: Patrick worked as a city bus department transit manager. His job required him to perform safety-sensitive functions like controlling the dispatch and movement of vehicles. The job was covered by DOT drug-testing regulations. One day, the city ordered Patrick to report for a random drug screen by close of business.
Patrick didn’t show; he later claimed he forgot. He was immediately suspended and told to test again the following day. He was also told that he had to have a clear report from a substance abuse professional saying he could perform safety-sensitive functions, plus a clean drug screen, before returning to work. He eventually got both.
But then he sued, alleging that he had been discriminated against because of a disability.
The court tossed out Patrick’s case, noting that he wasn’t a qualified person with a disability since he had refused the drug test. A refusal, even if he had “forgotten” to show up, meant that under federal DOT regulations, he was barred from performing his job. That made him unqualified. (Leaumont v. City of Alexandria, No. 14-30330, 5th Cir., 2014)
The Next Frontier in ADA Litigation: Website and App Access for the disabled
JD Supra
For the last several years, consumers have increasingly turned to online shopping as an alternative to traditional "brick and mortar" stores. Some reports showed that "Cyber Monday" sales figures beat out those for "Black Friday" this year, and many retailers are doubling down on their eCommerce efforts in response. What many retailers might not be aware of is the growing risk of litigation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and derivative state laws arising from websites or mobile apps that allegedly discriminate against disabled individuals.
Although there has been more than a decade of litigation on this issue, basic questions have remained muddled, including whether Title III of the ADA (which requires access to places of public accommodations to disabled individuals) applies to websites. Recent developments in case law, new proposed regulations by the Department of Justice (DOJ) slated for March 2015, and a noteworthy recent DOJ settlement with an online grocery service, all indicate that this will be an area to watch in 2015.
Lexology
In March, we reported on a landmark consent decree that settled the first lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice alleging that a corporate website failed to meet standards for accessibility established by Title III the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Now, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) has announced an agreement to resolve an exhaustive, 19-month investigation of website accessibility compliance in a public education setting under Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the federal Rehabilitation Act.
Title II of the ADA applies to state and local governments; the Rehabilitation Act covers recipients of federal financial assistance. The regulations implementing both prohibit covered entities from discriminating against qualified disabled persons, including students, employees and other members of the public, in providing any aid, benefit or service. Title II regulations also require a public entity to take appropriate steps to ensure that communications with disabled applicants, participants and members of the public are as effective as communications with others.
Under the resolution reached between OCR and Youngstown State University in Ohio, the university agreed to:
prepare and publish on its web pages an appropriate notice of nondiscrimination; create policies to ensure the university’s website, online learning and course management environments are accessible to actual and prospective students, employees, guests and visitors with disabilities; develop an implementation and remediation plan that includes regular audits, annual training, and procedures for ensuring accessibility of electronic and information technologies provided by third parties; provide expert certification that the university’s electronic and information technologies meet the school’s standards; ensure the accessibility of the university’s computer labs; and provide regular reports to OCR describing its efforts and progress.
Federal civil rights agencies continue to level their sights on website accessibility issues involving both private companies and public entities, even as specific standards have yet to be fully developed. As these recent settlements illustrate, responding to an investigation or lawsuit can be an intrusive and costly experience. These developments should alert not only educational institutions but also any business offering goods and services to the public that website accessibility is a focus of federal civil rights agencies, and that implementing appropriate audits and preventive steps now is an appropriate risk management strategy.
Autism should not be a barrier to flying LAX official says
Reduced Mobility Rights
Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) Americans with Disability Act coordinator Lawrence Rolon said families with autism should not give up flying.
To prepare for this Holiday Season, Los Angeles Airport issued a series of tips to make traveling with a disability as seamless as possible.
Pending U.S. Supreme Court case
Young v. UPS - The Supreme Court will address the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), and whether an employer can treat employees who require accommodations for non-pregnancy related disabilities more favorably than pregnancy-related disabilities. Young claims UPS violated the PDA by failing to provide her the same accommodations as non-pregnant employees with similar limitations, such as workers hurt on the job, those who qualified for ADA accommodations and those who lost their U.S. Department of Transportation certification.
The Fourth Circuit held that the language of the PDA does not require that pregnancy be treated preferentially, and found that UPS had “crafted a pregnancy-blind” accommodation policy that was applied equally to all employees based on the cause of the disability or accommodations and not the disability itself.