EEOC Sues M&M Limousine for Disability Discrimination
Des Plaines, Ill.-based M&M Limousine Service violated federal law when it refused to hire or consider potential accommodations for a qualified deaf job applicant, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.
According to the EEOC's lawsuit, the applicant applied for the position of limousine driver, but M&M refused to hire him and failed to consider whether he could do the job, with or without reasonable accommodations. The EEOC said that M&M told the applicant that it could not hire him because he is deaf, despite the fact that he met the qualifications for the position.
Such alleged conduct violates violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits discrimination based on disability and requires an individualized assessment of whether an applicant with a disability can perform the job, with or without reasonable accommodation.
The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. M&M Limousine, 19-CV-4213) in U.S. District Court for Northern District of Illinois after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The lawsuit asks the court to issue an injunction against M&M prohibiting the company from engaging in employment practices that discriminate on the basis of disability in the future and ordering M&M to carry out policies, practices and programs that provide equal opportunities for people with disabilities. The lawsuit also asks M&M to provide back pay and front pay as well as compensatory and punitive damages to the affected applicant.
"It is regrettable the M&M refused to hire the applicant based on unfounded assumptions that a deaf person cannot do the job rather than engaging in an individualized assessment of whether he could do the job with or without a reasonable accommodation, as required by the ADA," said Greg Gochanour, the regional attorney for the EEOC's Chicago District Office.
Julianne Bowman, the EEOC's district director in Chicago, added, "The ADA was enacted to combat the type of unsubstantiated assumption which M&M made that a person with a disability is incapable of performing work."
Absent Health Impairment, Obesity Is Not an ADA Disability
Lexology
The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 substantially expanded the definition of protected disabled persons under federal anti-discrimination laws. In most circumstances, employers do not spend much time arguing that the plaintiff is outside the ADA’s coverage. However, in a few cases, the defendant may contend that the claimed disability is only a physical characteristic and not a protected medical condition. In recent years, many of these disputes have involved claims by obese employees.
Earlier this month, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals joined a number of other federal circuits in holding that obesity itself is not protected under the ADA in the absence of a medical impairment. In Richardson v. Chicago Transit Auth., the plaintiff was a 400-pound bus driver who took medical leave due to hypertension. He was able to resolve the medical issues and sought to return to work, but his employer transferred him due to safety concerns over his operating the bus based on his size and its resulting incompatibility with the equipment in question. He sued under the ADA, claiming that he should be regarded as disabled due to his obesity.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the employer. The court determined that under the ADA, the plaintiff must allege that he suffers from a medical impairment, or that he was regarded as suffering from such impairment. Obesity in and of itself is a physical characteristic and not an impairment. The plaintiff never produced evidence that the employer based its transfer decision over fear of a medical condition, and he based his claim solely on the safety analysis.
The court concluded that this interpretation is consistent with EEOC guidance on this point. It also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the medical community now considers obesity to be a disease and a physiological disorder even in the absence of any related health complications. Employers faced with accommodation requests or claims by obese employees should analyze the specific circumstances to determine if the situation involves underlying medical issues, or only the impact of the employee’s weight on job performance.
6th Cir.: Nissan worker with restrictions not disabled under ADA
HR Dive
Dive Brief:
- Because a worker on a Nissan assembly line in Tennessee had provided no evidence of his disability other than his work restrictions, he could not show that he was disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (Booth v. Nissan North America, Inc., No. 18-5985 (6th Cir. April 30, 2019)).
- The employee had several work restrictions following a neck injury, but he continued to work on the assembly line for about a decade without incident. Eventually, Nissan denied him a requested transfer to a different position in the factory because that position's duties conflicted with his work restrictions. The employee claimed that this denial was illegal discrimination under the ADA.
- The 6th Circuit concluded that the employee had not supplied evidence to suggest that he was disabled beyond his work restrictions, so his claim that Nissan failed to accommodate his disability “fails out of the gate." The 6th Circuit upheld a district court's ruling of summary judgment in favor of Nissan.
Dive Insight:
As the 6th Circuit noted, “EEOC regulations explain that a plaintiff cannot claim a disability by simply demonstrating a substantial limitation in performing the unique aspects of a single specific job.” Rather than point to a single job that he or she cannot perform, a plaintiff alleging a work-related disability must show that the condition precludes the ability to work in a class or a broad range of jobs.
When a worker's condition does satisfy the definition of "disability" under the ADA, the employer must work with the employee to come up with a reasonable accommodation that enables the employee to perform the essential functions of the job (unless to do so would cause undue hardship to the employer, which is a difficult standard to meet).
According to the U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), reasonable accommodations may include:
- Modified work schedules or supervisory methods;
- Altering how or when job duties are performed;
- Telework beyond that provided to others;
- Changes in workplace policies (e.g., relating to breaks or leave);
- Accessible parking if the employer provides on-site parking to all employees;
- Reassignment to another job.
A reasonable accommodation may be fairly straightforward, such as the provision of a chair, or making a policy exception allowing a diabetic employee to eat or drink as needed. HR should train supervisors to ask: "How can I help you?" to help make sure reasonable accommodation requests start off in a positive and legally compliant manner, according to experts.
Not Website Handicap Accessible? The Lawyers Are Out To Get You
CloudWedge
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) sets rules and regulations that all businesses must follow when doing business in stores, hiring and retaining employees, and even having an online presence. If you aren’t meeting these requirements, your business may be at risk for a significant lawsuit. More and more disabled internet users are filing lawsuits against businesses that aren’t complying with ADA regulations.
The drastic increase in lawsuits that have popped up in the last few years has caused businesses to seriously reconsider their online presence. No longer does the ADA only apply to brick and mortar locations. Recent rulings have deemed websites for many businesses as an extension of a brick and mortar location, meaning the website falls under ADA guidelines.
Many small businesses haven’t considered online disability compliance, often because they don’t understand the requirements for accessibility online. Let’s take a look at what’s changed in the online ADA landscape in recent years and how you can ensure your website remains compliant.
County sued over internet content
ECB Publishing
Parking spaces and bathrooms, sure – but is your website compliant with the ADA?
FW Business
I was recently asked by a client about ensuring that their website is compliant with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). That’s right, while most employers are aware the ADA requires public places to be accessible to those with disabilities (i.e., parking spaces, ramps, curbs and bathrooms), few are aware that this obligation likely extends to the company website.
Wait, the ADA applies to websites?!
Yes. While the ADA does not explicitly mention the internet, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) — the primary enforcer of the ADA — has taken the position that ADA-accessibility requirements extend to company websites and “apps.” As part of its aggressive enforcement efforts, the DOJ has required a wide variety of companies to make both their websites and their mobile “apps” ADA-accessible. The emerging consensus is that if your company sells goods or services through its website, then there is likely an obligation to comply with the ADA.
Deaf Kalamazoo woman plans to file fourth civil rights complaint against Bronson Hospital
WWMT-TV
A deaf Kalamazoo woman said she plans to file a fourth civil rights complaint against Bronson Methodist Hospital following her most recent visit.
Jennifer Tyler has been deaf since birth. She went to Bronson's emergency room with a panic attack on Saturday and said she was unable to communicate properly with her doctor. She said she ultimately left the hospital out of frustration.
"The doctors need to step forward and do whatever they can to find out what the problem is without causing more problems. In this case, this particular doctor did [cause more problems]," Patricia Newman, Tyler's mother, said.
According to Tyler, hospital staff offered her video remote interpreting, or VRI, which connects patients with an off-site interpreter through a screen. Both Tyler and Newman, said the VRI freezes and the off-site American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters provided are not clear.
Tyler expressed her concerns over using VRI to her doctor by using a notepad.
"This is an accredited interpreter," he wrote. "It is not a civil rights issue to use an ASL interpreter. When you want to use this interpreter, we can talk."
"VRI always messes up and freezes all the time," she wrote.
Tyler explained through writing with Newschannel 3 that the interaction made her frustrated, sad, and angry.
"Many deaf people are complaining about VRI and wanted an interpreter," she wrote. "They refused."
Staff at Bronson declined an on-camera interview, but provided the following written statement from Beth Washington, Vice President, Community Health, Equity & Inclusion at Bronson Healthcare:
“We continually provide exceptional healthcare experiences for our community. We make our services accessible for all members of the community and accommodate the needs of our community, including those community members who require interpreter services. We provide these services free of charge to patients and their families. We are always seeking input on how to improve the services we provide, including the services we provide to those members of our community who require interpreter services.”
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, VRI is allowed to be used to communicate with people who are deaf or have hearing loss. However, the department said VRI must meet a set of specific standards. Those standards dictate that the video and audio must not produce "lags, choppy, blurry, or grainy images, or irregular pauses in communication."