Family Healthcare Network Settles EEOC Disability and Pregnancy Discrimination Suit for $1.75 Million
Family HealthCare Network will pay $1.75 million and furnish other relief to settle a systemic disability and pregnancy discrimination suit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today. The Visalia, Calif.-based health care company operates over 20 health care sites in Tulare, Kings and Fresno Counties.
According to the EEOC's lawsuit, Family HealthCare used its rigid leave policies and practices to deny reasonable accommodations to its disabled and/or pregnant employees, refusing to accommodate them with additional leave and firing them when they were unable to return to work at the end of their leave. In some instances, Family HealthCare discharged individuals before they had even exhausted their approved leave and failed to rehire them when they tried to return to work.
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as well as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of California (EEOC v. Family Healthcare Network,Case No. 1:18-cv-00893-DAD-BAM) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.
EEOC: Embassy Suites settles charges of firing employee due to asthma
Legal News Line
Merritt Hospitality LLC and HEI Hotels and Resorts LCC have settled a lawsuit filed by a federal agency, alleging one of the companies' workers was fired due to her asthma, violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a San Diego Embassy Suites hotel worker's asthma was aggrivated because her work area, which had no windows, was not ventilated. After bringing this problem to the attention of the company, San Diego Embassy Suites failed to accommodate the employee for her disability, which resulted in her going to the emergency room and, eventually, to her firing, the EEOC said. The EEOC says these actions violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
"The interactive process is an integral part of the ADA and requests for accommodations must be taken seriously," EEOC Los Angels regional attorney Anna Park said in a statement. "We are encouraged that Merritt Hospitality and HEI Hotels and Resorts have put in place meaningful measures to address disability discrimination and create a more inclusive workplace."
The settlement includes Merritt and HEI paying $125,000 and to secure an EEO monitor and internal ADA coordinator as well as a revision of company ADA policies and procedures.
"The EEOC strives to dispel the stereotype that providing reasonable accommodations will have a negative impact on employers," added EEOC San Diego Local Office director Christopher Green. "The injunctive relief put in place by this decree will have a long lasting effect on the company and all its employees."
Medical Evidence Not Necessary to Prove ADA Disability
JD Supra
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, plaintiffs have the burden of demonstrating they have a disability that results in a significant impairment of a major life activity. Since adoption of the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) in 2009, the amount of litigation over the question of disabled status has diminished. However, defendants still occasionally challenge ADA suits on the basis that the plaintiff fails to meet the definition of a protected disabled individual. Last month, the First Circuit Court of Appeals found that plaintiffs can meet this burden even in the absence of medical information regarding their condition.
In Mancini v. City of Providence, the plaintiff had a knee injury and claimed that the city’s police department failed to promote him because of his medical condition. The district court granted the employer’s motion of summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff had not submitted adequate proof of a disability. The plaintiff then appealed this decision to the First Circuit.
On appeal, the court agreed with the plaintiff’s assertion that disabled status under the ADA does not require medical evidence of the extent of the injury. In some circumstances, such information would be necessary to establish the existence of a qualifying medical condition. But in others, a lay jury can determine this status without detailed medical evidence. Under ADAAA, the threshold for claiming disability was reduced to the point where juries can decide these issues without expert testimony or evidence.
Even though the plaintiff prevailed on this point, the First Circuit still affirmed summary judgment for the employer. The court concluded that even if the plaintiff met the disability definition, he did not submit sufficient proof of substantial impairment of a major life activity. While most plaintiffs readily can meet the disability and significant impairment thresholds, employers should carefully review these requirements as part of their analysis of whether the employee is entitled to ADA accommodations and other legal protections.
Judge dismisses individual defendants from ADA suit, but case against SIUE can proceed
Madison County Record
U.S. District Judge Staci M. Yandle dismissed individual defendants from a Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville worker's American Disabilities Act lawsuit on Nov. 19.
Plaintiff Kathleen Susan Stipe had named five supervisors as co-defendants, but Yandle held that they cannot be liable for discrimination under the ADA.
Yandle's ruling noted that the Seventh Circuit already decided that individuals aren’t to be held responsible for ADA discrimination lawsuits as the law only aims to hold groups such as employers, places of accommodation and other organizations responsible, not their actual workers.
Stipe tried to argue that the individual defendants violated the ADA, but Yandle ruled that her complaint against individuals failed to state a claim and that they must dismissed.
Stipe, who was diagnosed with spinal stenosis, CHH dwarfism, scoliosis and degenerative arthritis said all was well between her and the university from April 2015 through November 2017. At that time, she was given accommodations including the university’s performance of an ergonomic study that enhanced her work area. The ruling indicates that things changed when she was transferred to a different workstation that wasn’t nearly as accommodating as her first station.
While she claims to have made requests, they were never met and her workspace went 145 days without being properly accommodating to her, according to background in the ruling.
Modest increases indicate ongoing job growth for Americans with disabilities
Medical Xpress
Americans with disabilities saw modest job gains in November, indicating the continuation of an upward trend, according to today's National Trends in Disability Employment—Monthly Update (nTIDE), issued by Kessler Foundation and the University of New Hampshire's Institute on Disability (UNH-IOD). These gains extend the upward trend that resumed in August 2018, following a brief downturn.
Employers, Do You Have “Meaningful Measures” In Place to Combat Disability Discrimination? #ADA
Lexology
What’s not a good idea? Terminating an employee who requests a reasonable accommodation. Or failing to even discuss said accommodation.
One employer found this out the hard way.
Yesterday, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency that enforces the federal anti-discrimination laws including the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), announced a $125,000 settlement with Merritt Hospitality and HEI Hotels and Resorts after filing a federal lawsuit about one hotel’s working conditions and its deleterious effect on an employee.
The Complaint alleged that the employer assigned an employee at one of the San Diego hotels to a workspace that lacked any ventilation or windows. Those conditions aggravated said employee’s disability (which was unspecified and unclear) and caused her to suffer significant breathing issues.
The EEOC asserted that the employee immediately requested an accommodation for her disability, but the company failed to provide her with an effective one.
Then the employer committed the cardinal sin: instead of engaging in the interactive process with the employee, the company fired her.
No, no, a thousand times no!
Critical to compliance with the ADA, employers must engage in an “interactive process” with an employee who has a disability to determine what kind of reasonable accommodations it can provide.
What Constitutes a Reasonable Accommodation?
As I wrote here, a reasonable accommodation is a change in the way duties are performed to help a disabled employee perform his or her job duties or enjoy the benefits and privileges of employment. If a disabled employee requests a reasonable accommodation, an employer must provide it unless doing so would cause “undue hardship,” defined as significant difficulty or expense for the employer given its size, financial resources, and the needs of the business. An employer may not refuse to provide an accommodation just because it involves some cost, but in truth, most accommodations are free or less than $500.
What Else Can an Employer Do?
Along with the hefty settlement, Merritt Hospitality agreed to retain an EEO monitor to ensure future compliance with the ADA and other anti-discrimination laws; appoint an internal ADA coordinator; revise its written policies and procedures regarding compliance with the ADA; create and maintain an accommodation log; implement training to all employees on the ADA; develop a centralized tracking system for accommodation requests and discrimination complaints; and submit annual reports to the EEOC verifying compliance with the decree.
All good ideas! The EEOC considered that these were “meaningful measures” to prevent disability discrimination.
Employer Takeaways
Talk to your employees, i.e., engage in an “interactive discussion.” Determine what your employee needs and what you, as the employer, can provide without undue hardship.
Once you’ve had this sit-down with your employee and the employee agrees that (s)he would benefit from certain reasonable accommodations, consider whether you need to request any functional limitations, caused by the disability, from an employee’s medical provider so as to understand the employee’s difficulties, how accommodations could alleviate an employee’s limitations, and which accommodations may be appropriate.
A wide range of reasonable accommodations is likely to exist. Check the EEOC website, the Job Accommodation Network (JAN), or consult with an employment attorney (I am available—I don’t just write blog posts).
Document any interactions with the employee, and remember that the ADA duty to engage in an interactive process to determine how best to accommodate an employee with a disability is an ongoing one.
Check your handbook policies for inflexibility. Modification of a workplace policy may be a reasonable accommodation for a disabled employee.
“The interactive process is an integral part of the ADA and requests for accommodations must be taken seriously,” said Anna Park, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Los Angeles District Office, which includes San Diego.
Remember to engage in it.
Laws for Paws: What the laws say about emotional support animals
Charleston Gazette-Mail
An emotional support animal is a companion animal that provides therapeutic benefit to an individual with a mental or psychiatric disability. A letter from a doctor describing the person’s disability and need for an emotional support animal may assist in housing accommodations for the animal. The person seeking the emotional support animal must have a verifiable disability — the reason cannot just be a need for companionship.
The animal is viewed as a “reasonable accommodation” under the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 to those housing communities that have a “no pets” rule. However, the emotional support animal is not a service animal and does not get the accommodations allowed by law for service animals.
Is It OK for Nondisabled People to Use the Big Bathroom Stall?
HowStuffWorks
It's a common dilemma – amid the sea of cramped regular public bathroom stalls lies the one gloriously large stall commonly designated for people with disabilities. Upon entering the bathroom you look around, often with a smidge of paranoia and guilt. You don't have any physical disabilities, but it sure can be more comfortable to use the wider bathroom stall, particularly if you have kids with you or are doing a quick change of clothes. But you might wonder, is this legal?
As it turns out, there's no law expressly forbidding a person without a disability from using the large stall. So, the potty police won't be busting out with cuffs anytime soon.