Settlement Agreement: Franciscan St. James Health
Federal District Judge Ronald A. Guzman has entered a final opinion and order finding Supervalu/Jewel-Osco in contempt of court for multiple violations of the consent decree previously entered by the court to resolve the EEOC's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) lawsuit against the supermarket giant.
Ruling on objections Jewel-Osco had filed to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, made after a three-day hearing in March and April 2014 that found that Jewel had violated the consent decree, Judge Guzman found on December 2 that Jewel failed to conduct an interactive process with and provide accommodations to three former Jewel-Osco employees who attempted to return to work from medical leaves of absence.
Maxim Healthcare Services Will Pay $75,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit
According to the lawsuit, Maxim Healthcare Services in Pittsburgh refused to hire a candidate for an assignment because that individual was HIV-positive. The position involved sitting with patients at a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical facility. Maxim Healthcare made a conditional job offer to the candidate, who is identified in the lawsuit under a pseudonym, that was contingent on completion of a health status certification. The EEOC charged that Maxim later refused to hire the candidate after receiving his medical evaluation which reflected his HIV-positive status but nonetheless provided that he was medically cleared to work. The EEOC did not allege any participation by the VA in Maxim's decision to refuse to assign the candidate because of his HIV-positive status.
ADA Class Action Plaintiff May Sue Over Unvisited Stores
The Legal Intelligencer
A potential class representative in an Americans with Disabilities Act suit against a grocery store chain need not have visited all of the stores at issue to have standing to bring the suit, a Pennsylvania federal magistrate judge has ruled.
JD Supra
A Costco employee suffered from Tourette's syndrome, and made complaints to management about the way his supervisors and others were treating him. He later filed charges with the Connecticut Human Rights Organization as well as suit in federal district court, claiming that he was subjected to a hostile work environment and retaliation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and corresponding state statutes. He also claimed breach of contract and promissory estoppel.
Risk and respect – what to know about disclosing mental illness at work
The Conversation US
Deciding to disclose information about a non-obvious disability at work is complicated and potentially risky, no matter what you do for a living. For people with a mental health issue, like bipolar disorder or PTSD where stereotypes and bias are prevalent, the risk can be even greater.
Teacher States FMLA Claim, But Not ADA Claim Against Religious School
In Bernard v. EDS Noland Episcopal Day Sch., No. 2:13-cv-3284, 2014 WL 5342582 (W.D. La. Oct. 20, 2014), the plaintiff taught for the defendant for 14 years, then developed an eating disorder for which she requested time off for treatment. The court granted summary judgment as to the plaintiff's claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for being "regarded as" disabled, lacking a reasonable accommodation, and failure to provide notice and the plaintiff's breach of contract claim, but denied it as to the plaintiff's interference and failure to notify claim under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The plaintiff lost her ADA claims because she failed to show that she could perform the essential functions of her job at the time of her termination. Her return-to-work release was revoked by her medical team and she was unable to say when she would be able to show that she could perform the essential functions of the job. An employer is not required to grant indefinite leave as a reasonable accommodation. Also, the plaintiff never asked for an accommodation and could not show that she is a qualified individual with a disability. But with respect to the plaintiff's FMLA claim, the court found there was a genuine dispute as to a material fact regarding whether the plaintiff provided adequate notice that she was planning to take qualifying leave under the FMLA. The court determined that the plaintiff was denied benefits under the FMLA; in particular, she was not offered her old position when she attempted to return to work. The plaintiff's contract with the school stated that she could be terminated for "just cause," meaning "[a]ny ... condition which materially impairs the continued usefulness or ability of the Teacher to perform the services required hereunder, as determined by the Head in her sole discretion." The court interpreted this to mean that the Reverend Kay had sole discretion to determine whether the plaintiff had a condition that materially impaired her continued usefulness and, thus, dismissed her breach of contract claim.