Project Civic Access Agreement: Milwaukee, Wisconsin
From repairing sidewalks to fixing polling places, the City of Milwaukee faces a $3.4 million tab over the next three years to improve accessibility for people with disabilities.
The deal was struck this week and announced Thursday as the city reached a settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice to come into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Under Project Civic Access, the DOJ has conducted investigations into cities and states across the nation to ensure compliance with the ADA.
Disabled employee accuses Blue Shield of wrongful termination
The Louisiana Record
An East Baton Rouge woman is suing Blue Cross, alleging she was fired because of a disability.
Catherine Jones filed a lawsuit May 23 in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana against Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana, alleging discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination and violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, in July 2013, Jones suffered a stroke, which caused her to loose partial vision in her right eye and numbness on her right side. The suit says the defendant did not meet her needs for reasonable accommodations.
As a result, the lawsuit states, Blue Shield gave Jones the option to resign or be terminated. In light of coercion, she chose to resign Dec. 24, 2014, the complaint says.
The plaintiff alleges the defendant threatened to terminate her employment for allegedly not meeting the speed quotas, failed to participate in an interactive process to accommodate her limitations, failed to consider reassigning her to a position that does not require quotas and failed to consider a reduction in her workload.
Jones seeks a trial by jury, declaration the defendant violated the ADA, damages plus interest, attorney fees, legal costs and any remedies that may be available. She is represented by attorney J. Arthur Smith, III of Smith Law Firm in Baton Rouge.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana Case number 3:16-cv-00340
Court Grants Judgment In Favor Of EEOC in Disability and Genetic Discrimination Case
A federal judge ruled in favor of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on June 8, 2016 that a Mountain Grove, Mo., farm violated two federal laws by requiring all job applicants to fill out a health history before they would be considered for a job, the federal agency announced yesterday.
Former prison guard files lawsuit alleging civil rights and ADA violations
Lawrence Journal World
A former correctional officer for the Leavenworth Detention Center has filed a lawsuit against the center's owner for alleged violations of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act that occurred while she was pregnant.
Viewpoint: Get Your Disability and Leave Management House in Order
SHRM
Lawsuits involving disability discrimination claims topped the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) list of litigation in 2015, even though disability discrimination was the third-most-frequently alleged type of discrimination in charges filed with the agency. This should come as no surprise. In 2012, the EEOC issued its Strategic Enforcement Plan, highlighting six enforcement priorities. For disability-related issues, those priorities include “Eliminating Barriers in Recruitment and Hiring” and “Emerging and Developing Issues.” Under the first category fall practices such as drug testing, post-offer pre-employment medical examinations and other practices that may screen out applicants because of a disability. Under the second category fall accommodation claims, including accommodations for pregnancy-related conditions. That the EEOC classifies accommodation issues as “emerging and developing” is significant. The 2008 Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act, for the most part, left employer accommodation obligations untouched. One could argue that the agency wants to develop the law on employer accommodation obligations in a way that is more expansive than settled case law.
What Employers must know about the Americans with Disabilities Act
Lexology
A few weeks ago, we posted a blog concerning the aggressive, suit-filing tactics by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against employers and the expensive and public consent decrees that follow.
One of the EEOC consent decrees discussed was with Rock Tenn, a paper and packaging manufacturer with a facility located in Battle Creek, Michigan. The consent decree required Rock Tenn to pay $187,000 in settlement of the EEOC lawsuit to provide training to its employees and submit to EEOC oversight of the manufacturer’s human resources practices. So what caused the problem for Rock Tenn? Specifically, it failed to follow the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that required Rock Tenn to provide qualified employees with an accommodation for a disability. In that case, Rock Tenn’s worker was approved for short-term disability leave for open heart by-pass surgery through April 11. The worker had a speedy recovery and by March 11, received clearance to return to work on a part-time basis as of March 21. Rock Tenn terminated his employment on March 10.
The case highlights a few things that employers must get right about the ADA:
1. Employers are required to accommodate qualified employees with a disability.
2. An employee almost always has a disability covered by the ADA if he has been approved for short-term disability pay.
3. What is required as a “reasonable accommodation” is defined by means of something called the interactive process that is specific to each disabled employee seeking an accommodation. Simply speaking, the “interactive process” is a conversation, or usually several conversations, between the employee and employer concerning the accommodation requested by the employee, what constitutes a reasonable accommodation and which of several possible accommodations an employer may provide. There are, of course, nuances to the interactive process, including consideration of what the employer has offered by way of accommodation to other employees in the past, what the employee’s medical provider has to contribute to the discussion, etc., but the underlying goal of the interactive process is to arrive at a game plan that results in keeping or returning the employee back to the work of performing the essential functions of his or her job with the employer. Many employers have a dedicated specialist, whose job is solely to manage medical leaves, including the interactive process. The point here is that the employer may not simply impose what it believes is the appropriate accommodation for an employee, at least not without first engaging the employee in that conversation.
4. Leave time (paid or unpaid) is one such accommodation that is specifically recognized in the ADA regulations and by the courts. While most employers understand that the panoply of potential accommodations includes things such as changes to non-essential job duties, modifications to the work site, or more frequent or regular break times, many do not appreciate that time off in order to rehabilitate or recuperate may also be required as an accommodation under the ADA. Referring back to the second point above, the appropriate accommodation for an employee who has been approved for short-term disability is almost always leave time. And while indefinite leave time is not required under the ADA, employers who impose an artificial, blanket policy that limits leave time will find themselves sideways with the EEOC.