Disability Services Company to Pay $100,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit

ValleyLife, a disability support services company, will pay $100,000 and furnish other relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced yesterday.

According to the EEOC's suit, ValleyLife had a practice of firing employees with disabilities who needed extended leave or reassignment rather than providing them with reasonable accommodations as required under federal law. The EEOC alleged that ValleyLife simply terminated people who had exhausted their paid time off and/or any unpaid leave for which they were eligible under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) rather than determine if there was a reasonable accommodation that would allow them to continue to work.

Court Dismisses Website Accessibility Suit Over Lack of Connection to Store

Lexology

As we noted earlier this week, a handful of law firms have filed hundreds of lawsuits – and sent many hundreds of letters threatening lawsuits – over website accessibility issues. This has been a lucrative business for these firms. Many of these suits and letters are essentially cut-and-paste jobs, and the recipients often decide to quickly settle, rather than face the uncertainties and costs of litigation. But a new decision in Florida may give defendants something to think about.

A plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Bang and Olufsen in Florida, alleging that the retailer violated the ADA because its website is not compatible with screen reader software. The sole issue before the court was whether the website was a place of public accommodation, subject to the ADA.

The court concluded that “a website that is wholly unconnected to a physical location is generally not a place of public

accommodation under the ADA.” In order to survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must generally establish that there is some nexus between a website and a physical location, and demonstrate that the website’s inaccessibility impedes his access to that location.

Importantly, the court held that the “ADA does not require places of public accommodations to create full-service websites for disabled persons. In fact, the ADA does not require a place of public accommodation to have a website at all. All the ADA requires is that, if a retailer chooses to have a website, the website cannot impede a disabled person’s full use and enjoyment of the brick-and-mortar store.”

As we noted in our previous post, it’s too early to predict how this decision will affect the wave of lawsuits in this area. Other courts have come to different conclusions on this issue, so a company’s chances of winning with this type of argument may depend on where the suit is filed. But this case may still be welcome precedent for companies thinking about litigating one of these cases.

Legislation aimed at predatory ADA lawsuits stalls

Modesto Bee

Legislation that would shield businesses from predatory lawsuits stalled Tuesday in an Assembly committee concerned with protecting rights of disabled people.

Assembly Bill 913 represents Adam Gray’s “latest, best effort” to curb abuse of disability access laws, he said, because previous reform measures have done little either to help protect businesses or reduce barriers to the disabled.

Getting Fit at Work: The Ongoing Battle Over Employer-Sponsored Wellness Programs

JD Supra

With the Affordable Care Act’s explicit encouragement, it is no surprise that employer-sponsored wellness programs have been on the rise. However, they have come up against some notable challenges for possibly violating anti-discrimination laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), because they provide incentives for those employees who choose to participate in them. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) weighed in on the issue in May 2016 by publishing regulations regarding employer-sponsored wellness programs.

Labor Law: Protections limited for employees struggling with drug and alcohol abuse

Richmond.com

The Redskins recently terminated General Manager Scot McCloughan for what was widely reported as alcohol abuse. This prompted discussion among fans as to whether or not the team had a right to fire him for that reason, since alcoholism is a medical condition.

Whether or not McCloughan was a diagnosed alcoholic is not for the public to conclude, as that is between him and his doctor. But the laws around alcoholism and the workplace are relatively clear.

The Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA, considers alcoholism a disability. The ADA also protects recovering alcoholics and drug addicts who may no longer be abusing alcohol or using illegal drugs.

The law does not protect current illegal drug users. Thus, an individual who fails a drug test would not have any right to accommodations under the ADA.

Batavia Man Argues To Keep His 'Therapy Pig'

Patch.com

The City of Batavia has told Greg Brown that having a pig as a pet is in violation of a city ordinance. The city received about a dozen complaints about the pig and sent Brown a letter in late February notifying him of the violation, according to Batavia City Administrator Laura Newman. The letter gave Brown 30 days to either comply or petition the City Council for an amendment to the ordinance.

A Batavia city ordinance prohibits residents from keeping certain livestock, including pigs, within 200 feet of a residence.

According to the Kane County Chronicle, Brown owns the Buddha Gandhi and Me wellness and meditation studio in downtown Batavia. He often has the pig, named Pigly Brown, at the studio. Brown claims that Pigly, an eight-month old teacup pig, is a therapy animal.

“He’s helped me with my depression,” Brown told the Kane County Chronicle. “He’s a therapy animal for me. He is truly a blessing in my life.”

Brown argued to keep his pig at a Batavia City Council meeting on March 21. Officials expressed concern over Brown walking the pig though downtown Batavia without a leash. City officials also said pigs are not considered therapy animals under the Americans with Disabilities Act.