Agri-AFC, LLC, an agricultural retailer which operates 21 retail locations throughout Alabama, Florida, Georgia and Mississippi, has agreed to pay $40,000 and furnish significant equitable relief to settle a federal lawsuit charging that Agri fired an employee because of a pre-existing back condition, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today.
According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, the employee was hired in 2017 to work at Agri’s Poplarville, Miss., facility as a driver and warehouse worker. Two months after his hire, the employee disclosed to Agri’s district manager that he was taking medication for a back injury he had suffered during military service. Almost immediately thereafter, the company demanded a list of the employee’s medications and then fired him, telling him the district manager felt he was a liability to the company because of his back injury and feared he would injure himself further, the EEOC said.
United Parcel Service, Inc. violated federal law by firing an employee because of his disability, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.
According to the EEOC’s suit, a UPS human resources supervisor at a Jacksonville ware-house location referred to an employee with a disability as a “liability,” claiming that he could not do his job because of his diabetes. The employee requested the accommodation of an occasional short break of less than five minutes in between unloading trailers to check his blood sugar and eat or drink something if necessary.
The employee suffers from erratic or brittle diabetes and wears an insulin pump with a continuous glucose monitor. The employee was able to perform the essential functions of the job as pre-loader and indeed performed the job at UPS without issue for two days before his termination. After the employee’s second shift ended, the UPS Human Resources Supervisor then left the employee a voicemail message advising him it was his last day of work. Terminating an employee because of his disability violates the Americans with Disabilities Act.
California Federal Court Holds Domino’s Website Violates the ADA, Limits Penalties Under Unruh Act to $4,000
A California federal district court has held that the website of Domino’s Pizza violates the ADA, following a long saga that included the Ninth Circuit’s reversal of the district court’s prior dismissal of the case.
Judge Jesus Bernal of the Central District of California granted the motion for summary judgment by plaintiff Guillermo Robles on June 23, 2021, on grounds that Robles could not order a pizza from Domino’s website using screen reader technology, and ordered Domino’s to make the website accessible in accordance with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), version 2.0. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to Domino’s app, however, finding that whether the app is currently accessible - and therefore whether the plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief under the ADA is moot - to be a disputed issue of fact.