Settlement Agreement: Opus 465 and Tresca
PAM Transport Ordered to Pay $477,399 In EEOC Disability Case
In its lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that PAM violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by subjecting its entire workforce of truck drivers to overly broad medical inquiries. The lawsuit arose from PAM's medical clearance policy, which required all drivers to notify the company whenever the driver had any contact with a medical professional, including a routine physical.
Such alleged conduct violates the ADA which prohibits employers from making medical inquiries of employees unless the inquiries are job-related and consistent with business necessity. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Civil Action No. 4:09-13851) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.
In April 2012, the court issued an order mandating the company to change its medical clearance policy to make medical inquiries of drivers only when they are job-related and consistent with business necessity. To help resolve remaining issues, the court appointed a retired judge as third-party decision maker.
On Feb. 26, the court entered an order which requires PAM to $225,998 in back pay and interest, $49,114 in compensatory damages, and $202,287 in punitive damages to 12 of its former truck drivers.
9th Circuit Win for Disabled Pier 1 Shopper
Courthouse News Service-
In the latest chapter of an 11-year lawsuit against Pier 1 Imports, the 9th Circuit partly upheld the ruling for a disabled shopper at one of the chain's California stores.
The case Byron Chapman filed against the retailer in 2004, regarding architectural features at a Pier 1 in Vacaville that acted as a barrier to his wheelchair, has already gone before the federal appeals court three times.
Trial date set in CRMC discrimination suit
Cookeville Herald Citizen
The case of two deaf men filing suit against Cookeville Regional Medical Center for failing to provide effective communication now has a trial date.
According to the case management order, the case is set for jury trial on Tuesday, June 14, 2016, at 9 a.m.
What can go wrong? ADA decision shows importance of interactive process
Lexology
When employees suffer permanent injuries, their ability to continue performing their job duties is often affected. In these situations, employers must step carefully to avoid liability for violations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The recent case of Kauffman v. Petersen Health Care VII provides a salient example of what can go wrong.
Are We Being Punked? EEOC Files Disability Discrimination Claim Against Disability Service Provider
JD Supra
The EEOC has filed a lawsuit (EEOC v. ValleyLife, Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-00340-GMS) under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) against ValleyLife, a disability support services company in Arizona, claiming that ValleyLife has failed to reasonably accommodate its employees with disabilities. According to the complaint, ValleyLife had a policy under which an employee was automatically terminated once he or she ran out of leave (paid or unpaid) and could not return to work. The EEOC claims ValleyLife was supposed to engage in an interactive process with the employee and determine whether it could provide a reasonable accommodation, such as additional leave.
“State Of The Union” On Substance Abuse And The Workplace
JD Supra
Do the Americans With Disabilities and Civil Rights Acts Apply to Police Operations?
Truth-Out
When someone who is mentally ill is causing a disturbance or creating a risk of danger to others, should the police transport the person to a hospital for treatment or can they, perhaps, simply shoot her? Well, of course, you say, they can't shoot her. But you might be wrong, according to police guidelines. This spring, the US Supreme Court will decide.
Teacher With Fear of Children Not Entitled to ADA Accommodation
JD Supra
The Americans with Disabilities Act requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations that allow a disabled employee to perform the essential functions of the job. However, not all accommodation requests are reasonable. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently rejected a claim by a teacher with a mental condition that made her fear young children, that she was entitled to an accommodation that would preserve her current job.