Settlement Agreement: Aurora Health Care
Justice Department Says Vending Machines Are Not Places Of Public Accommodation—And So Much More
Lexology
In amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Justice Department agreed with the Fifth Circuit and defendant Coca-Cola that a vending machine is not a place of public accommodation and that public accommodations can comply with the ADA by providing assistance to customers in lieu of having accessible self-service equipment.
The Supreme Court recently asked the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to weigh in on whether vending machines are places of public accommodation covered by Title III of the ADA. The Court’s request related to a pending a Petition for Certiorari filed by a blind plaintiff who unsuccessfully sued Coca-Cola for allegedly owning and/or operating vending machines that are not independently usable by the blind. Both the District Court and the Fifth Circuit had concluded that such machines are not public accommodations under the ADA.
EEOC Sues Verona Resort & Spa For Pregnancy and Disability Discrimination
Verona Resort & Spa., a hotel resort and spa in Tamuning, violated federal law when it discharged a pregnant employee with a disability after failing to provide her with an accommodation, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed yesterday.
According to the EEOC's lawsuit, in 2014, a front desk agent provided medical notes that informed Verona Resort & Spa that she had been diagnosed with gestational diabetes. Due to her pregnancy-related disability, her doctor requested that she be allowed to sit during some of her duties as front-desk agent and wear open-toed shoes. The EEOC asserts that instead of providing the accommodations, Verona Resort & Spa discharged the employee within days of making the request, claiming that her pregnancy impacted her ability to perform her job.
Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for Guam (EEOC v. Polaris Guam LLC, d/b/a Verona Resort & Spa, Case No. 1:17-cv-00090) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC's suit seeks back pay and compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief intended to prevent and address pregnancy and disability discrimination in the future.
EEOC Sues Wesley Health System / Merit Health Wesley For Disability Discrimination
Wesley Health System, LLC, dba Merit Health Wesley, a general medical and surgical hospital located in Hattiesburg, Miss., violated federal law when it refused to provide a reasonable accommodation to an employee with physical impairments and then fired her instead, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed on July 25, 2017.
The EEOC's Mobile Local Office investigated the discrimination charge and discovered that Lois Cooper worked as a registered nurse for Merit Health Wesley for approximately two years before injuring her arm and shoulder. When she returned to work after a three-month leave, she presented a release from her doctor releasing her for full duty, with a heavy-lifting restriction. Despite the release, the company refused to allow her to return to work, and did so without first engaging in the legally required interactive process to determine if she was qualified to perform her job. Cooper was called into the human resources office and told that based on the lifting restriction, she could not perform job duties, and was let go.
Regional International Sued by EEOC For Firing Employee Who Requested Leave for Surgery
Regional International Corporation, a commercial truck and trailer dealership with locations in Western New York, unlawfully fired an employee after he requested leave for hip replacement surgery, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed yesterday.
The EEOC's lawsuit alleges that, in June 2015, truck parts delivery driver John R. Moore II requested a short leave for surgery to treat hip osteoarthritis that had degenerated to the point of bone-on-bone contact, causing him excruciating pain and difficulty walking, using stairs and sleeping. Instead of accommodating Moore's disability, Regional International fired him, the EEOC said. The same supervisor who, about a month before, had rated Moore's work "Exceptional" and written that he had received "no complaints from customers," told Moore that he was being fired due to alleged customer complaints. This same supervisor later informed the EEOC that disabled people cannot work for Regional International because they would not be able to get the work done.
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires that employers provide reasonable accommodation to qualified individuals with disabilities, and prohibits employers from discriminating against them.
The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York (EEOC v. Regional International Corporation, Civil Action No. 17-cv-06505), after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC is seeking injunctive relief prohibiting Regional International from discriminating against disabled employees in the future, as well as lost wages, compensatory and punitive damages, and other affirmative relief for Moore. The agency's litigation effort will be led by Trial Attorney Liane T. Rice, supervised by Supervisory Trial Attorney Raechel Adams.
"The ADA has protected disabled employees from workplace discrimination since 1990," said EEOC Regional Attorney Jeffrey Burstein. "It is disturbing that, in 2017, some employers still believe that Americans with disabilities have no place in their workforce."
Who's Responsible for Providing Disability-Related Workplace Accommodations to Temporary Employees?
Lexology
Many businesses use temporary workers placed by staffing agencies. But who is responsible when a temporary worker requests a disability accommodation? The staffing agency and the business could both be responsible if they are acting as “joint employers” under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Staffing agencies commonly “employ” temporary workers: hire the workers, pay wages, provide any benefits, withhold taxes, pay employer taxes, etc. The company or “worksite employer” often directs how and when the work is performed, supervises the workers, and expects the workers to comply with company policies and procedures. In this situation, the staffing agency and the worksite employer are considered joint employers under the ADA, and both are responsible for ADA compliance.
EEOC targets Delaware nonprofit, alleging disability discrimination
Legal News Line
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced a lawsuit July 17 against Connections CSP Inc., a nonprofit company providing health care, housing and employment opportunities, for allegations of denying reasonable accommodation to a class of employees with disabilities.
"Rigid maximum-leave policies, even if they comply with other laws, violate the ADA when the policy mandates the termination of employees," said Spencer H. Lewis Jr., director of EEOC's Philadelphia District Office.
Have You Been Threatened with an ADA Website Accessibility Lawsuit?
Lexology
Many business owners are familiar with Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) requirements for physical structures, such as including wheelchair-accessible routes of travel in restaurants. However, it is less commonly known that the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and class action plaintiffs’ attorneys have interpreted the ADA to apply to website accessibility as well.
Website Accessibility Lawsuits under ADA are on the Rise
The National Law Review
For years, lawsuits under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act concerning places of public accommodation were confined to brick-and-mortar physical barriers, such as steps, excessive slopes in parking lots, and routes that were too narrow for individuals in wheelchairs to use. Now, in the e-commerce age, lawsuits complaining that businesses websites are not accessible to vision-impaired users in violation of Title III are on the rise.
JD Supra
Massachusetts just joined 21 other states and the District of Columbia by enacting a comprehensive pregnancy workplace law with unanimous support from the legislature, employee advocates, and the Massachusetts business community. Today, Governor Charlie Baker signed the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), which will take effect (appropriately enough) in about nine months – on April 1, 2018.
At its heart, the PWFA adds “pregnancy or a condition related to said pregnancy including, but not limited to, lactation or the need to express breast milk for a nursing child” to the list of protected classes under the Commonwealth’s anti-discrimination act, but the law goes further than that – it also requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations when appropriate. Massachusetts employers will need to prepare for some changes to their policies and practices in order to comply with this new law.
Massachusetts Expands Employers' Obligation to Accommodate Pregnant Employees
Lexology
On July 27, 2017, Governor Baker signed the Massachusetts Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (the “Act”). Once the Act takes effect on April 1, 2018, most employers with employees in Massachusetts will be required to provide reasonable accommodations to employees for pregnancy and related conditions.
Only on RGJ: A $690000 fix for Mackay renovation mistake
Reno Gazette Journal
When University of Nevada gave Mackay Stadium a $14 million facelift, it forgot about the view for ticket-holders in wheelchairs
New Tourism Center is not accessible for the disabled
Eureka Times Standard
I find it troubling that the Humboldt Bay Tourism Center in Old Town Eureka does not provide adequate or legal access for the disabled. Not only is the access a good idea, the Americans with Disabilities Act requires it. The entrance from the alley which serves as the accessible entrance for the center does not meet the requirements or the intent of the ADA. Why is access for the disabled so often ignored?
There is an additional problem with the Old Town location for the center. It’s difficult enough to find parking for an automobile in Old Town, so where does a tourist park when he’s driving a motorhome, a travel trailer, watercraft, etc.? When no parking is found, they will move on.
When looking for a new location for the center, did anyone contact representatives from the Bayshore Mall, Eureka Mall, Target or other locations that could house the center and provide convenient parking?
Since the Clarke Museum could use more space for their many exhibits, does that leave enough space for the tourist center to provide a service which represents Humboldt County?
Blind mom pushes to have DOE materials available in braille
SILive.com
Americans with Disabilities Act: An Epic Tragedy of Good Intentions
Southeast Texas Record
Looking back at the Americans with Disabilities Act, passed by Congress in 1990[1], one has to be struck by the extent to which the ADA’s lofty sentiments have been overwhelmed by its adverse results. If it’s true that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, then the ADA is a veritable Autobahn of wishful thinking gone awry. Yet no one seems inclined to reroute the ill-fated traffic; some states are even widening the highway with additional lanes.