A blind couple have accused a bus company of 'blatant discrimination' after a driver refused to allow them on a coach because there was no space in the designated disabled section.
Cindy Bennett and Mike Mello, who are both visually impaired, said they felt 'uncomfortable and unwelcome' when the driver ordered them off the bus in downtown Seattle.
The pair pointed out that they are entitled to sit in any section of a bus, and do not have to use the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) seats just because they are eligible to.
'Association discrimination' in the workplace
New Hampshire Business Review
The ADA protects employees who are adversely treated based on stereotypes and assumptions arising from the employee’s relationship to someone with a disability.
Baker Wellness Center Illegaly Fired Employee Because of Disability, EEOC Claims in Lawsuit
Baker Wellness Center, Inc., a Baton Rouge, La., area adult day care and wellness center, illegally fired a Direct Service Worker (DSW) because she had a disability--diabetes, and in retaliation for her not giving prohibited medical information on its application, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleged in a lawsuit filed today.
According to the EEOC's complaint, in October, 2011, Brenda Lanus filled out an application to be a DSW. The suit alleges that Baker Wellness made unlawful medical inquiries on Lanus's job application, without having first made a conditional offer of employment. One question asked whether she had any physical condition which would limit her ability to perform the job in question, which consisted mostly of driving clients, to which she truthfully responded "no."
Agency to pay former employee $309K
KSDK
A non-profit social service agency has settled a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by a former employee with multiple sclerosis.
Comprehensive Behavioral Health Center in East St. Louis will pay $309,000 to a former 23-year employee who filed the lawsuit alleging the agency refused to accommodate her and denied her rehire. The lawsuit was filed on the employee's behalf by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
The EEOC says CBHC violated federal law by not reasonably accommodating Pamela Perry, who in June 2002 requested to wear athletic shoes to work after she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. The EEOC says CBHC allowed her to wear the shoes for a few years, but then disciplined her for wearing them. They say numbness, tingling, and pain in her feet made it necessary for her to wear the athletic shoes.
According to the EEOC, Perry requested additional accommodations as her symptoms worsened, but she was denied. They say when she wrote a complaint letter, she was laid off, and CBHC refused to re-hire her when she applied for a vacant position. The EEOC says this violates the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The settlement was reached Dec. 30. In addition to the payment, CBHC will also take action to prevent disability discrimination.
EEOC expands the scope of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act
Lexology
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued new guidelines on pregnancy discrimination that afford greater protections to pregnant workers under the federal Pregnancy Disability Act.
For example, if a woman is temporarily unable to perform her job due to a medical condition related to pregnancy or childbirth, the guidelines state that her employer must treat her in the same way as it treats any other temporarily disabled employee. This could mean that the employer may have to provide light duty, alternative work assignments, disability leave, or unpaid leave to pregnant employees if it does so for other temporarily disabled employees.
In addition, the guidelines stress that a pregnancy-related disability may be covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a proposition that some courts had rejected until recently. Under these guidelines, an employer would have to provide a reasonable accommodation to a woman who is disabled by pregnancy, absent undue hardship to the employer.
Many states and municipalities are taking matters into their own hands and have passed or are passing sweeping pregnancy accommodation legislation. Jurisdictions such as New Jersey, California, and New York City now require employers to provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant women and those who suffer medical conditions related to pregnancy and childbirth. This could include anything from providing an employee with more frequent bathroom breaks to assisting her with non-manual labor. Other states and cities have proposed similar legislation as the accommodation wave continues to sweep the nation.
ACTION ITEM
Employers should investigate whether they reside in a jurisdiction with proposed or enacted pregnancy accommodation reforms. Regardless of where they do business, employers in the U.S. should examine their accommodation policies to ensure they are truly “pregnancy-blind” and do not run afoul of the PDA.
Ninth Circuit Defends Employer's Discharge of Worker With a History of Intimidation and Threats
JD Supra
Curley v. City of North Las Vegas, No. 12-16228 (December 2, 2014): The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a judgment against a worker who claimed that he was fired because of his hearing impairment in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The court found that the employee could not show that the reasons for his discharge—including intimidation of his coworkers by threats of violence and conducting personal business during work hours—were pretextual. The court also rejected the worker’s argument that his employer’s tolerance of his “bad behavior” for years before he made an accommodation request confirmed that his discharge was retaliatory.
How do employee protections under FMLA and ADA differ?
HR.BLR.com
A Pennsylvania court recently ruled that the majority of an employee's claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) were unsupported by evidence against her employer and her supervisors. The employee was allowed to proceed with some of her FMLA and ADA claims after she revised them.
Baltimore Jewish Times
When Baltimore resident Jessica Gill contacted the Hippodrome Theatre in January, she hoped that by December the venue could come up with a plan to accommodate her hearing impairment so that she could see “Newsies.” But after months of emails, when opening night came on Dec. 2, no such accommodations had been made.
Gill has severe-profound hearing loss, which means she has lost most of her hearing, but has some residual hearing that hearing aids can support.
“I rely on lip reading to contextualize what I am hearing, as hearing and comprehension are two different things,” she said via email. “It’s sort of like speaking to someone who speaks a foreign language: You can hear them but you can’t understand them. Lip reading helps me make sense of what I’m hearing.”
What Gill needed, since a vast stage and the nature of musical performance means lip reading isn’t an amicable solution and she doesn’t speak sign language, was captioning.
After communication with the Hippodrome did not lead to a definitive answer, Gill contacted the National Association for the Deaf and filed a civil lawsuit on Dec. 1, alleging that the theater did not comply with two parts of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The suit was filed against Key Brand Theatrical Group, which operates the venue, the Hippodrome Foundation and the Maryland Stadium Authority, which gives the theater annual funding.
New Tax Incentives for Businesses that Hire Vets or Workers with Disabilities
TWC News
In the new year, businesses will be able to take advantage of two tax credits to benefit some of the state's most vulnerable populations. "Veterans and people with developmental disabilities," said Graig Zappia, a partner at Tully Rinckey. Businesses can receive up to $5,000 for each veteran hired or up to $15,000 for a disabled veteran. Additionally, businesses that hire people with developmental disabilities can get up to 15 percent of employees' wages. The amount of credit can be higher or lower depending on the number of hours employees work. "Individuals under the ADA have been discriminated against. And, individuals that have served in the military have been discriminated against. This gets people back on the work force that may otherwise not be hired," said Zappia. Several organizations and businesses have expressed their support over their incentives. - See more at: http://albany.twcnews.com/content/news/796894/new-tax-incentives-for-businesses-that-hire-vets-or-workers-with-disabilities/#sthash.m5ed6qnY.dpuf
Should The Americans With Disabilities Act Be Extended To Obese Workers?
Forbes
The Court of Justice of the European Union recently ruled that obesity can be a work disability under EU law. In the U.S. the Americans for Disability Act has long protected workers with disabilities from being discriminated against. But obesity itself has never been considered a disability. According to Rebecca Puhl, deputy director at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University an obese worker “must prove that his or her obesity is disabling or perceived to be disabling by others.” In contrast to medical conditions such as alcoholism and HIV/AIDS are automatically designated as disabilities, not requiring such workers to offer a similar standard of proof. Consequently, according to Puhl, in most cases, obesity does not meet the definition of disability and the legal cases that hinge of obesity as a disability are generally not successful.
What Others Say: Obesity shouldn't be treated as disability (Chicago Tribune)
Online Athens
The following editorial appeared in the Chicago Tribune on Dec. 30:
This time of year, endless opportunities to overindulge can test the willpower of anyone who does not want to put on pounds. At the end of the holidays, some people will be congratulating themselves on their self-restraint, while some will feel guilty about giving in and resolve to do better in 2015.
Avoiding obesity is simple in theory, if not easy, and most of us think it should be a matter of individual decisions, with individual consequences. ...
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has interpreted the 2008 amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act to mean obesity can qualify as a condition that has protection against employer discrimination. ...
Employer payouts under the Disabilities Act increasing in Alabama
Birmingham Business Journal
Employers in Alabama and around the country have seen a hike in payouts under the Americans with Disabilities Act over the last five years.
According to an analysis from Dallas, Texas-based law firm Chamblee Ryan, the amount Alabama employers have paid to settle claims of disability discrimination in the workplace has risen from $967,000 in 2009 to $1.7 million in 2013.
That 79 percent increase places Alabama slightly above average nationally with a $1.48 ADA payout per capita. The U.S. average payout per capita is $1.35.
The ADA defines a disability as "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities." That definition was broadened with a 2008 amendment and included impairments such as epilepsy, bipolar disorder, diabetes and multiple sclerosis, among others.