Blue Sky Vision Pays $67,590 to Resolve EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit
According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) lawsuit, the employee was hired in June of 2018 as an optometrist for Blue Sky Vision in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Approximately three months later, the employee mentioned his medical condition to a coworker. Blue Sky management learned of the employee’s condition and, without evaluating whether the condition would affect his ability to perform his job, told him that he was a liability and sought his resignation. When the employee argued that Blue Sky’s actions were illegal, the company postponed his termination, placed him on a leave of absence and required him to submit to an overly broad and intrusive medical inquiry into health conditions unrelated to his ability to perform his job. When the employee opposed the breadth of the medical inquiry and refused to submit to it, Blue Sky sent him an official termination letter, the EEOC said.
U.S. Attorney’s Office Enforces Americans with Disabilities Act Against Airport Parking Company
Canopy Parking operates a 4,500-space parking lot near the Denver International Airport. As part of its airport-parking service, Canopy provides a shuttle service to the airport. A complaint was filed with the U.S. Attorney’s Office against Canopy by a customer who uses a wheelchair because of a disability. The complainant and his wife alleged that in December 2018, Canopy was unable to provide wheelchair-accessible shuttle service from its parking lot to the Denver International Airport. The complainant had called and e-mailed ahead. Canopy represented that a wheelchair-accessible shuttle would be available. But when the complainant and his wife arrived at Canopy, they discovered that the only wheelchair-accessible shuttle had been out of service for weeks. The couple had to park elsewhere and risked missing their flight as a result of Canopy’s failure to ensure wheelchair-accessible shuttle service.
Complaint Filed by the United States Against Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania
The United States brings this suit against Defendant, the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania (UJS), to enforce Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§12131-34, as amended, and its implementing regulation, 28 C.F.R. Part 35. The UJS has unlawfully discriminated against individuals with Opioid Use Disorder in its court supervision programs, in violation of Title II of the ADA, by prohibiting or otherwise limiting the use of medication prescribed to treat their disability.