Airline merger changed the job, justified rescinding telecommuting agreement of employee with MS
American Airlines could rescind the "Work from Home Arrangement" (WFHA) of an employee with multiple sclerosis based on a supervisor's determination that the essential job functions of her position changed following the company's merger with US Airways. A federal district court properly granted summary judgment to the airline in her suit under the ADA and state law, the Seventh Circuit held, agreeing with the lower court that she was not a qualified individual because she could not perform the essential functions of the post-merger job. One judge dissented. ( Bilinsky v American Airlines, Inc, 7thCir, June 26, 2019, Kanne, M.)
MedStar Health / Medstar Ambulatory Services Agree to Conciliate EEOC Disability Bias Charge
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), MedStar Health, Inc. and MedStar Ambulatory Services, Inc. announced today the successful conciliation and settlement of a charge filed with the agency under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC reached a voluntary resolution with both employers through the agency's conciliation process following its investigation findings. Neither employer admitted to any wrongdoing or fault in violation of the statute.
In addition to addressing the concerns of the person filing the charge of discrimination, MedStar Health and MedStar Ambulatory Services agreed to implement revised attendance policies that will reasonably accommodate employees with disabilities as required by the ADA. The policies will specifically state that exceptions to their attendance policies will be made when required by the ADA as a reasonable accommodation for employees with disabilities. Both employers agreed to disseminate their revised policies to all employees and to the posting of EEOC notices. MedStar Ambulatory Services also agreed to conduct training for all current supervisory and human resources employees.
"We are pleased that MedStar Health, Inc. and MedStar Ambulatory Services, Inc. worked with us to revise this matter informally and took proactive measures to ensure that individuals with disabilities will receive reasonable accommodations when needed," said EEOC Philadelphia District Director Jamie R. Williamson.
EEOC Baltimore Field Office Director Rosemarie Rhodes added, "We commend MedStar Health and Medstar Ambulatory Services for working cooperatively with the EEOC to resolve this matter prior to litigation. We encourage all employers to review their policies and procedures, including attendance policies, to ensure that they provide for reasonable accommodations and equal opportunities for people with disabilities."
The ADA prohibits workplace discrimination based on disability. The ADA requires employers to provide a reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities, unless it would pose an undue hardship.
The EEOC's Baltimore Field Office is one of four offices in the EEOC Philadelphia District Office, which has jurisdiction over Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia and parts of New Jersey and Ohio.
Addressing emerging and developing areas of law, including inflexible leave policies that discriminate against individuals with disabilities, is one of six national priorities identified by the EEOC's Strategic Enforcement Plan.
EEOC Sues Valley Tool for Disability Discrimination and Retaliation
A tool company operating in Water Valley, Miss., violated federal civil rights laws when it denied an employee a reasonable accommodation for her disability, fired her and then punished her for complaining about it, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed today. The company also denied another employee wage increases in retaliation for the filing of a charge of discrimination. Valley Tool manufactures custom tooling, including repair and part replacement.
According to the EEOC's lawsuit, the employees worked as sorters for Valley Tool in 2016, 2017 and 2018. When one employee disclosed she had a "blood disorder" that caused her to miss work, Valley Tool's manager told her he would not have hired her if he had known she had a blood disorder and they thought they were hiring a "healthy" individual. Later, the company denied the employee a reasonable accommodation by telling her that she could not miss any more work until her probation expired; removed her from the work schedule' placed her on an involuntarily leave of absence; and discharged her because of her disability and in retaliation for her complaints about discriminatory comments made about her disability. Valley Tool took these actions despite having a letter from the employee's doctor stating she lacked any medical restrictions and was cleared to work without any limitations.
Further, the EEOC said, another employee who complained about the manager's comment made about her colleague's blood disorder and other workplace issues was denied wage increases after she filed a discrimination charge. Valley Tool told this employee and the EEOC that the company denied her the wage increases because she had filed the discrimination charge and the company had to spend money responding to it.
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which makes it unlawful to discriminate against employees by denying them a reasonable accommodation, subjecting them to different terms and conditions of employment, and terminating them because of a disability. The ADA also makes it unlawful to retaliate against an employee for her complaints about perceived discriminatory comments.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also prohibits retaliation against employees because they file a discrimination charge.
The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Valley Tool, Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-00140 and EEOC v. Valley Tool, Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-00141) in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, Oxford Division, after first attempting to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. Candace Macon Williams of the agency's Memphis District Office investigated the discrimination charges.
"The ADA has been in effect for almost 30 years," said EEOC District Director Delner Franklin-Thomas. "After all this time, employers must know that their employees have a right to a reasonable accommodation absent undue hardship. Further, if an employer punishes an employee for complaining about perceived discrimination, it's only making a bad situation worse. The EEOC will continue to fight such misconduct."
Work Restrictions Don't Necessarily Amount to a Disability
Lexology
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the fact an employee had work restrictions that prevented his transfer did not mean that he was disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
In Booth v. Nissan North America, Inc., an employee suffered an injury resulting in work restrictions, but those restrictions did not affect his ability to perform his job duties, which he continued to do for another decade. He then applied for a transfer, but those restrictions conflicted with the requirements of the new position and he was denied the transfer. In the meantime, his current job was restructured to add new duties that were also in conflict with his restrictions. The employee’s doctor then reevaluated him and modified the restrictions such that he could perform all the duties. He then sued, alleging violations of the ADA.
The Sixth Circuit found that the denial of transfer claim was untimely, as he failed to file a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 300 days of the denial decision. Although the employee noted that the denial had been reiterated within that 300-day period, the Sixth Circuit found that the 300-day period ran from the date of the final decision, and not any date of subsequent re-explanation of the decision.
In addition, the Sixth Circuit also disposed of the discrimination claim. If an employee claims that he is substantially limited in the major life activity of working, he must show that his impairment limits his ability to “perform a class of jobs or broad range of jobs.” The Sixth Circuit held that “simply having a work restriction does not automatically render one disabled…nor does being unable to perform a discrete task or a specific job.”
Obesity Alone Is Not A Disability
Lexology
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that extreme obesity, without evidence of an underlying physiological condition, does not meet the definition of a physical impairment and therefore is not considered a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
In Richardson v. Chicago Transit Authority, due to the employee’s extreme obesity, he was deemed unsafe to work in his position as a bus driver. He was eventually terminated after a two-year leave. He then sued, alleging violations of the ADA.
The Seventh Circuit found that the driver was unprotected by the ADA because the implementing regulations state that obesity is an impairment only if it results from an underlying “physiological disorder or condition,” which the employee failed to show. In so holding, the Seventh Circuit joined the Second, Sixth and Eighth Circuits. The Seventh Circuit rejected arguments from medical organizations that obesity is in and of itself a physiological disorder, noting that “The ADA is an antidiscrimination – not a public health – statute, and Congress’s desires as it relates to the ADA do not necessarily align with those of the medical community.”
The Seventh Circuit also rejected the employee’s argument that he was perceived as disabled in violation of the ADA. While he was subjected to adverse employment actions because of the physical characteristic of his weight, there was no evidence that anyone perceived that his obesity was caused by a physiological disorder.
We note, however, that the EEOC takes a different approach, stating as follows in its Compliance Manual: “[B]eing overweight, in and of itself, is not generally an impairment… On the other hand, severe obesity, which has been defined as body weight more than 100% over the norm, is clearly an impairment. In addition, a person with obesity may have an underlying or resultant physiological disorder, such as hypertension or a thyroid disorder. A physiological disorder is an impairment.” Thus, employers should be aware that the EEOC does not require an underlying physiological disorder in order for obesity to be considered an impairment and thereby the obese employee to be disabled.
Owner of Betty Ford Center reaches settlement with DOJ over American with Disabilities Act
The Desert Sun
The Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation finalized a settlement agreement on Friday in which it agreed to remove architectural barriers to access at the Betty Ford Center, a well-known drug and alcohol treatment facility it owns and operates in Rancho Mirage, the U.S. Attorney’s Office said.
The settlement agreement resolves allegations that the Betty Ford Center violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination by places of public accommodation against individuals with disabilities.
Hazelden, a Center City, Minnesota-based addiction treatment and advocacy organization, fully cooperated with the government’s investigation, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
“People should never be deterred or impeded from seeking treatment for drug or alcohol addiction because of a physical disability,” said U.S. Attorney Nick Hanna. “Our office will enforce the rights of individuals with disabilities to access healthcare without barriers. We commend Hazelden for taking steps to comply with the ADA to ensure that the Betty Ford Center is accessible to all.”
Does your NYC Business Meet ADA Website compliance standards
Foreign Policy 2018
As companies around the globe try to bring the websites into compliance with the World Wide Web Consortium’s Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (or for short, WCAG), their focus on other accessibility regulations has also increased. The US’ Americans with Disabilities Act, or for short ADA, is one of the most complicated pieces of accessibility regulations. In this article, you will be able to read about what is ADA compliance, what does it say about your website, and you will also learn if it is necessary for your site. Let’s take a look:
Should I Tell my Boss I Have Depression?
WJCT NEWS
Discrimination is against the law, but you should still weigh your options
Becky Beach had been working for her employer for over a year when she decided to tell them about her bipolar disorder.
She had switched medication, and it wasn’t working. She needed a few days off, and she wanted to give her boss a heads up as to why she was taking the days.
Beach was fired a week later.
“There is a stigma on mental illnesses and not everyone understands them,” she said. “I tried to seek legal help but I had no recording of myself telling my boss about my condition. There wasn’t any proof, basically.”
Beach wasn’t trying to request any extra accommodations. She’d thought that being open and upfront could help save her job. It had the opposite effect, she said.
Beach said she’d never tell a future employer about her condition. And with stories like hers, it’s hard to know whether it’s a good idea for anyone.
Protected by law
The good news: if you live in the United States, you’ve technically got protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Reasonable Accommodations Can Make Working Through Cancer Treatment Easier
Curetoday.com
Many patients with cancer continue to work through treatment. It’s a variety of reasons that keep them on the job, such as insurance coverage, a distraction from the disease, feeling less isolated and being in a routine.
However, being at work while facing cancer can be challenging. Days will be missed for treatment, side effects will begin and coworkers most likely will start to notice and, perhaps, ask questions.
Employees should know their rights — how they are protected by their employer and on a state and federal level. For example, job protection may be through specific employer policies, such as short- and long-term disability insurance, sick time and flextime/telecommuting; and federal laws, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act.
ADA For Hotel Websites Explained
Hotel News Resource
Vizergy’s Director of Business Development, Hope Waggett, CHDM, weighs in on the hot topic of ADA compliance for hotel websites:
Allow me to begin by stating that I am not qualified to offer legal advice on any topic, particularly in the area of discrimination and accessibility. This information is based on experience with real-world lodging operators trying their best to serve every guest they can connect with. That is what makes ADA compliance so important to hoteliers. It’s not about avoiding legal complaints, but how important it is to treat every possible guest with respect and to offer the hospitality travelers expect from their host.
Let’s get familiar with the standards. In December of 2008, WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines) were published to provide a single shared standard to serve the disabled accessing digital content. These standards were updated and WCAG 2.1 was published in June of 2018. The guidelines are organized around 4 main themes: items that are perceivable (seen and heard), operable (actions to take), understandable (clearly expressed) and robust (containing meaningful information).
Sounds like a good process, right? Unpacking how a hotelier can review their own accessibility and serve their guests better is challenging. In the writer’s experience, there are 3 main areas with which to concern yourself.