Covenant Transport To Pay $30,000 To Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit
The EEOC's suit had charged that Covenant discriminated against an applicant for a commercial truck driver position on the basis of his disability. Covenant conditionally approved the applicant's application, pending a license check and a drug screening. The applicant told Covenant's representative he was unable to provide a urine sample due to a medical condition, bladder exstrophy, but could provide blood for the drug screening. Covenant initially agreed to the blood screening, but later decided not to hire the applicant because of his medical condition and the fact that he could not provide a valid urine specimen.
Failing to make a reasonable accommodation for an applicant's disability violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC filed suit (Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-00142 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. Covenant denied that it discriminated against the applicant.
Graceworks Lutheran Services to Pay $30,660 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit
According to the EEOC's suit, Graceworks Lutheran Services refused to hire Michelle Anthony because she is deaf and cannot speak. Anthony applied for the site manager position at one of the Graceworks' housing communities. Despite its being an apartment complex that gives preference to deaf residents, Graceworks required the successful job candidate to be a hearing individual.
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC filed suit (Civil Action No. 3:15-cv-00261) in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Dayton Division, after first attempting to reach pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.
The consent decree settling the suit provides Anthony with compensatory damages and injunctive relief, including anti-discrimination training, reporting of discrimination claims, and a prohibition against any discrimination or retaliation.
S&B Industry to Pay $110,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit
According to the EEOC's suit, Katelynn Baker and Tia Rice applied for jobs with S&B Industry (also doing business as Fox Conn S&B) in the company's cellphone repair facility. During a group interview, the two women used American Sign Language to communicate with one another, and the company became aware that they were hearing-impaired. In a meeting with one of the supervisors, Baker and Rice requested that the supervisor provide written information about the positions for which they were applying. The supervisor initially complied, but then refused to continue writing information for Baker and Rice, according to the suit. Baker and Rice were then told that S&B Industry would not hire them.
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA protects employees from discrimination based on their disabilities and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to employees' and applicants' disabilities as long as it does not pose an undue hardship. The EEOC sued in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Civil Action No. 3:15-cv-00641) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.
L-3 Communications Sued by EEOC for Disability Discrimination
According to the EEOC's lawsuit, the engineer worked successfully for L-3 Communications after being hired in 2008. In late 2014, he suffered two major depressive episodes at work and went on medical leave. After receiving treatment, he was returned to work with a full release from his physician, but L-3 Communications insisted that he submit to a fitness-for-duty exam before returning to his position. The psychologist who conducted the exam then indicated that he could safely resume work with accommodations such as additional training and feedback, and recommended that the best long-term outcome would be to return him to a different position. The engineer also asked whether there was a reasonable accommodation that the company could provide that would allow him to return to work. The company failed to consider or provide any reasonable accommodation, and instead gave him the ultimatum that he would either need to resign or be fired.
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which protects employees from discrimination based on their disabilities and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for known disabilities. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. L-3 Communications, Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-00538-N), after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The agency seeks back pay and compensatory and punitive damages for the victim, as well as injunctive relief.
Something We Said? Court Backs Off Accommodation Duty For Associational Disability
Lexology
The Court of Appeal, on rehearing, has superseded a 2016 decision that employers must reasonably accommodate work restrictions because of the disabilities of the employee’s associates. The superseding opinion recognizes that employers have no established duty to provide accommodations because of the disability of an employee’s associates.
Seyfarth’s One Minute Memo readers will recall that we reported, back in April 2016, on a classic case of “hard facts make bad law”. In that case, Castro-Ramirez v. Dependable Highway Express, the Court of Appeal creatively held that California employers must accommodate employees who do not themselves have disabilities but who simply are associated with someone who has a disability.
We are happy to update you on later proceedings in that case. The unusual result that we criticized last year is no longer even arguably the law in California. The accommodation claim, which was the focus of the prior Court of Appeal decision, was abandoned by the plaintiff after the initial decision. In the decision upon rehearing, issued August 29, 2016, the Court of Appeal observed:
[N]o published California case has determined whether employers have a duty under FEHA to provide reasonable accommodations to an applicant or employee who is associated with a disabled person. We acknowledge that the reasonable accommodation subdivision of section 12940 does not expressly refer to persons other than an applicant or employee. . . . We only observe that the accommodation issue is not settled and that it appears significantly intertwined with the statutory prohibition against disability discrimination . . . .
While the Court of Appeal conceded that it could not rule on a question that the plaintiff had abandoned, the Court of Appeal emphasized that there is a cause of action for associational discrimination under both the FEHA and the ADA, and held that triable issues precluded summary judgment on the discrimination and retaliation claims.
(The California Supreme Court, meanwhile, has denied Dependable’ s petition for review.)
Workplace Solution: California law remains the same as it was before the original Castro-Ramirez decision: there is no established duty for an employer to grant a reasonable accommodation to an employee who is not disabled, but who is merely associated with someone who is. It remains the case, though, that employers must not discriminate against employees on the basis that they are associated with someone who has a disability. Caution in making employment decisions relating to employees with known disabled associates thus remains highly advisable.
Michigan Medical Services Firm to Pay $21.5K to Settle Disability Discrimination Suit
Insurance Journal
A medical services provider serving the Muskegon, Michigan, region will pay $21,500 and furnish other relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
The EEOC announced it had charged that Muskegon Family Care violated federal law by firing an employee on the basis of her medical condition.
Businesses seek legal fees as ADA lawsuits are dismissed
East Valley Tribune
A critical setback in court may have a high cost for a foundation that filed more than 1,000 lawsuits against Arizona businesses – many in the East Valley – accusing them of violating the federal American with Disabilities Act through inadequate parking spaces and signs.
Attorneys who represent two of the businesses that were sued filed court documents last week requesting thousands of dollars in legal fees against the Advocates for Individuals with Disabilities Foundation and their attorney, Peter Strojnik.
In addition, the Arizona Attorney General’s Office, which successfully argued for the dismissal of the cases before Maricopa County Superior Court Judge David Talamante, is expected to file a motion for sanctions against the foundation and Strojnik in effort to prevent such frivolous suits from happening again.