Consent Decree: Two Men and a Truck | Complaint
Settlement Agreement:
Crystal City Shops and Underground
Federal court dismisses ADA discrimination, retaliation suit against special needs service group
The Pennsylvania Record
According to a federal judge, a woman’s former employer did not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and her suit alleging this discrimination and retaliation is dismissed.
Equal Access to Websites: Balancing Aesthetics and Accessibility
Lexology
Technology permeates nearly every aspect of modern society. Coupled with constant cutting-edge developments, it can often be difficult to keep up. Recently, businesses operating websites which offer goods and services to the public have been targeted for failing to do just that. This advisory intends to summarize important guidelines and regulations to apprise businesses of a few basic legal requirements to help foster website accessibility.
EEOC Can File Discrimination Suits on Behalf of Workers, Federal Judge says
The Legal Intelligencer
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission may file a single suit to gain recovery for a group of workers who have been subjected to discriminatory employment practices, rather than file multiple individual suits, a federal judge has ruled.
U.S. District Judge Mark R. Hornak of the Western District of Pennsylvania's ruling in EEOC v. FedEx Ground Package System allows the EEOC to continue its lawsuit against FedEx, in which the commission represents 17 deaf individuals who claimed FedEx didn't make adequate accommodations for them in their jobs as package handlers.
The decision was in response to FedEx's motion to dismiss the case. FedEx claimed the EEOC could not represent a class of plaintiffs because each claim was too individualized and fact-specific. FedEx argued that under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the EEOC had to file a series of one-off lawsuits for each of the plaintiffs.
However, Hornak wrote in his opinion that the EEOC has authority to bring such suits under the ADA for the purpose of eliminating systematic employment discrimination.
"The EEOC has broad power to 'prevent any person from engaging in any unlawful employment practice,'" Hornak said. "Specifically, the EEOC is authorized to bring civil actions against discriminating employers."
JD Supra
Nursing Center Failed to Provide Pregnant Employee with a Reasonable Accommodation and Subsequently Fired Her, Federal Agency Charged
What happens when the definition of disability changes? The case of obesity
7thSpace Interactive
This paper examines how Congress’s 2008 expansion of who is disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) impacts the labor market outcomes of newly covered individuals. Focusing on obese individuals, I exploit variation in coverage of obesity before and after the 2008 expansion to identify effects of the legal change, but I find no improvement in the labor market outcomes of the obese.
Although the 2008 expansion was intended to remedy the unintended consequences of the ADA and improve labor market outcomes of the disabled, these early estimates suggest that the expansion has not yet achieved Congress’s stated goals.JEL codes: J14, J21, J78, K31
This Boy Was Thrown Out Of School Because Of His DNA, Parents Say
BuzzFeed News
Colman Chadam carries genetic markers for cystic fibrosis, but doesn’t have the disease itself, according to his parents. Inside their legal battle against the school district in Palo Alto, California.
Employer Feeling Better After Court Tosses EEOC Challenge to Wellness Program
Lexology
With the question of the Americans with Disabilities Act's (ADA) application to employer wellness programs still uncertain, one federal court judge made his position clear by tossing an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) lawsuit accusing an employer of violating the statute by mandating that employees take part in a wellness program. Last year, the agency filed multiple suits challenging employer wellness plans, including a complaint alleging that Flambeau, Inc., required its workers to complete a health risk assessment and biometric screening to be eligible for participation in the company's group health insurance plan in violation of the ADA. The employer moved to dismiss the suit, and the court granted the motion. The health risk assessment and biometric screening were terms of the plan and used to enable the employer to "underwrite, classify, and administer" its health insurance risks more effectively, the court found. Therefore, the program fell within a safe harbor in the ADA for employers to administer the "terms of a bona fide benefit plan." Although the EEOC has issued proposed rules in an effort to clarify the application of the ADA to wellness programs, employers still face uncertainty due to discrepancies between the proposed guidance and the rules for wellness programs under the Affordable Care Act and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.