Mobile phone accessibility improves, but gaps remain, study finds
Phys.Org
Mobile phones are increasingly more accessible by people with disabilities, but significant gaps remain, according to a newly published study from the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center for Wireless Inclusive Technologies (Wireless RERC) at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
'Queer Eye' guest Skyler Jay sues UGA for trans health discrimination
Red and Black
University of Georgia employee Skyler Jay paid $16,200 for his gender reassignment surgery, a procedure not covered under the University System of Georgia’s healthcare policy.
This exclusion constitutes health care discrimination against trans people, Jay said, and he filed a lawsuit against USG for being denied this care.
This is the first trans health lawsuit of this kind filed in the South, according to the Equality Case Files.
Driving Blindfolded: EEOC Withdraws Guidance On Wellness Programs
JD Supra
Effective January 1, 2019, the EEOC withdrew its prior guidance on the level of incentives employers may offer their employees to convince those workers to participate in employer-sponsored wellness programs, including weight loss, stress management, and other similar employee health programs. Despite withdrawing its regulations, the EEOC did not issue any new rules—leaving employers without clear guidance on how they may structure wellness programs to comply with federal requirements moving forward.
Pursuant to a court order, the EEOC recently withdrew its prior guidance on the level of incentives that employers can offer employees to convince them to take part in employer-sponsored wellness programs. Unfortunately, the EEOC did not substitute any new regulations when withdrawing the old ones. As a result, employers find themselves in limbo, without clear guidance on how to structure wellness programs that actually drive changes in employee health choices while at the same complying with federal law.
Disability Discrimination and Medical Leave Decisions
- Snapp v. United Transportation Union: The defendant, a trainmaster with sleep apnea who was unable to work, sued his employer under the American with Disabilities Act for failure to provide a reasonable accommodation. His benefits were discontinued after 5 years and he was terminated for failing to secure another position. The Ninth Circuit affirmed a ruling in favor of the defendant, holding that, to prevail, an employee alleging failure to accommodate must prove: that the employee is a qualified individual, the employer received notice of the employee’s disability and a reasonable accommodation was available that would not create an undue hardship for the employer. The court found that the employer had met these obligations. It is important to note that there might have been a different result under California law because FEHA, unlike the ADA, makes it unlawful for an employer to fail to engage in the interactive process. The ADA has no such standalone cause of action. The case below, brought under FEHA, demonstrates this.
- Hernandez v. Rancho Santiago Community College: The plaintiff, an administrative assistant who was completing a required 1-year probationary period, was terminated while on temporary disability leave for a work-related injury. Suing the District under FEHA, she alleged her employer failed to both provide reasonable accommodation and engage in an interactive process. A trial court found in the plaintiff’s favor and awarded nearly $724,000 in damages. On appeal, the district argued it was compelled to terminate the plaintiff because she would have become a permanent employee without going through requisite performance evaluations. The appellate court disagreed, finding the college could have extended the probationary period by the length of her leave and conducted the evaluations upon her return to work after she completed a full 12-months of employment. The college was found to have also failed to engage in the interactive process because there was no exchange of information before a termination decision was made.
- EEOC v. BNSF Railway Co.: The plaintiff received a conditional job offer contingent on a satisfactory post-offer medical review. During the review, he disclosed a previous back injury, but three doctors agreed there were no current limitations and no need for follow-up testing. BNSF, nonetheless, required the plaintiff to submit an MRI (paid for by the plaintiff) as a condition of employment. Unable to afford the MRI, his job offer was revoked. He filed a charge with the EEOC, which sued on his behalf in federal district court for alleged violations of the ADA. The Ninth Circuit upheld a decision that BNSF could not require Holt to pay for the MRI.
- Dunlap v. Liberty Natural Products, Inc.: A shipping clerk diagnosed with problems in both elbows was terminated after the close of a workers’ compensation claim. A reinstatement pursuit was denied and the plaintiff sued for disability discrimination under the ADA and Oregon state law. The Ninth Circuit held that, once an employer is aware of the need for accommodations, it has a duty to engage in the interactive process to identify reasonable accommodations, which Liberty, in this matter, had failed to do.
- Caldera v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation: A California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation correctional officer was publicly and repeatedly mocked for a speech impediment in front of other employees. On an appeal by the CDCR, the court upheld a jury verdict in the plaintiff’s favor because he was subjected to unwanted harassing conduct based on his disability; the harassment was severe and pervasive; a reasonable person in his position would have considered the work environment to be hostile or abusive; a supervisor participated in the harassing conduct and CDCR failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the harassment.
Update: ADA lawsuits targeting Finger Lakes wineries/others under scrutiny
13WHAM-TV
New lawsuits filed in federal court last week target two Finger Lakes wineries, accusing them of having websites that are not accessible to people who are blind or visually-impaired. 13 WHAM News first reported last fall on the rash of lawsuits being filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Do's and Don'ts regarding service dogs and federal law
DailyTrib.com
DuMaurier said people with service dogs still get denied entrance to public places because of the animals. But, she countered, the Americans with Disabilities Act lays it out quite clearly how people with service dogs are to be treated.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, “Under the ADA, state and local governments, businesses, and nonprofit organizations that serve the public generally must allow service animals to accompany people with disabilities in all areas of the facility where the public is normally allowed to go.”
[Podcast]: Can My Employees Bring Animals To Work?
JD Supra
In this episode of The Proskauer Brief, partners Harris Mufson and Howard Robbins continue their “Can My Employees Do That?” series. In this installment, Harris and Howard discuss the legal requirements regarding service animals in the workplace and provide practical advice for employers to address requests by employees to bring service animals to work. Please tune in to hear their insight regarding this challenging employment issue.
