EEOC sues home for failure to comply with agreement
McKnight's Long Term Care News
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has charged a North Carolina nursing home for failing to pay a settlement to a disabled employee.
The government agency says Green Manor Rest Home Inc. had settled charges it discriminated against a disabled employee, violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. The agreement said Green Manor would pay $85,876 over a six-month period to the former employee. Green Manor also agreed to other provisions, including training for all employees on the ADA.
The nursing home only made two of the required monthly payments, and still owes $57,250, the EEOC says. It also did not complete any of the additional provisions.
EEOC's new lawsuit requests Green Manor to pay the remaining fees and comply with the other terms of the conciliation agreement.
Florida law makes using fake service dogs a criminal offense
Wink News
A new law could put someone in jail for using a fake service dog.
The Takeaway: Feds eye new rule for workplace wearables
CIO
Companies that use wearables as part of their workplace wellness programs may soon have to make room for another player: The federal government.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has issued a proposed rule that would amend parts of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 as it relates to wellness programs used by more than half a million U.S. companies. Public comments are being accepted through today.
Federal court rejects former Kansas state employee's claim of discriminatory termination
Topeka Capital Journal
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected a former Kansas state employee’s claim that he was fired in retaliation for his advocacy on behalf of a disabled coworker.
Is honesty the best policy? EEOC alleges honesty policy violates ADA
Lexology
Our parents consistently told us honesty was the best policy. Being honest with the people you interact with, whether, socially, romantically, or professionally, often creates the healthiest relationships in the long run; the EEOC may, however, disagree with me.
The EEOC recently sued Aurora Health Care Inc. in the Eastern District of Wisconsin arguing in part that an “honesty policy” which barred employees and applicants from providing false or misleading information, served as an illegal qualification standard under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In its recent decision denying the employer’s motion for summary judgment in the action, the court held the defendant had failed to show that the honesty policy was both job-related and consistent with business necessity as it was applied to workers with disabilities. The court noted that the question of whether honesty was an “essential function” of the hospice care coordinator position the plaintiff applied for was the key to resolving the claim.
While it’s difficult for me to think of any position where honesty would not be an essential function of the position, it may just be that I have high standards. At this time, we recommend that employers maintain any “honesty policies” that are currently in place, but we will keep readers updated as this case progresses.
Feds Review Disabled Access At Georgia Courthouses
WABE 90.1 FM
ederal authorities say they are reviewing courthouses in north Georgia to determine whether they are accessible for people with disabilities.
The U.S. attorney's office in Atlanta said Wednesday it is reviewing nine courthouses in the Northern District of Georgia to determine whether they comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990.
Taking the ADA Out to the Ballgame
Huffington Post
The 25th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act is July 26, and longtime disability advocate Greg Smith wants to take it out to the ballgame.
On June 3, Smith launched the ADA Fan Cam initiative. The idea is to persuade broadcasting executives at every Major League Baseball game on July 26 to show shots of fans with disabilities during the game. Smith also wants announcers to talk about the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Can that Doggie in the Window … Enter my Store?
JD Supra
Readers will recall that we recently corralled the law on “Assistive Animals” in the workplace, here. Now, in part two of our mini-series, we pony up an explanation of the rules governing the use of service animals by customers and patrons (as opposed to employees) in places of public accommodation, e.g., grocery or other stores, hotels, and movie theaters (as opposed to the workplace). While there are a few similarities, the California law covering service animals in places of public accommodation differ in significant ways from that governing such animals in the workplace. Reconciling these differences can be like herding cats, causing confusion for customers, employees, and employers that operate places of public accommodation. Please read on to ensure that when confronting these issues you will not be barking up the wrong tree.