Settlement Agreement: Columbia, South Carolina Police Department
DOJ, Columbia police reach agreement for hearing disabled
The State
The U.S. Department of Justice announced Tuesday it reached a settlement with Columbia Police Department concerning communications access to those with hearing disabilities.
The Justice Department investigated a complaint that the police department failed to provide effective communication to someone who was arrested, according to a news release from the DOJ. The complainant, who is deaf, alleged the department failed to provide a sign language interpreter for him, despite several requests during three months, including during his arrest.
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act requires communications between public entities, such as police officers, and those with hearing disabilities are as effective as communications with those without disabilities.
US Government Again Puts Web Accessibility Guidelines On Back Burner
ARC
Any developer waiting clarification from the government as to the accessibility requirements of apps and websites will have to keep working in the dark for the time being.
The Department of Justice said that it will withdraw the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in respect of Web accessibility regulations in order to solicit more public comment. In a statement the DOJ said that it wanted more information about how best to shape its rule making efforts, especially when it comes to integrating existing accessibility technologies.
In July of last year, the DOJ said that accessibility guidelines would be released in April 2016 before deciding in December to delay those guidelines for a further two years. The DOJ has repeatedly said that adopting a set of Web guidelines that can be applied to the Americans with Disabilities Act is critical but this latest decision would indicate that those guidelines are a long way in the future.
EEOC Sues KB Staffing For Disability Discrimination
According to EEOC's lawsuit, from 2011 to 2013, KB Staffing asked all applicants to complete a paper application package with a detailed medical questionnaire before the company offered the applicant a position or placement. The suit further alleges that, although KB Staffing represented that it changed its process in 2013, it still required applicants to complete a medical questionnaire prior to any offer of employment in some instances after that date. The medical questionnaires asked for sensitive health information, and included numerous disability-related questions.
Hotel News Resource
In a rare and decisive action, a Central District Court Judge dismissed an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) lawsuit filed by an Arizona disabled plaintiff who has recently filed a wave of over 70 ADA lawsuits against Southern California hotels.
The plaintiff, who claims she is confined to a wheelchair, called an Orange County hotel to book a room. She asked the hotel representative whether the hotel pool and Jacuzzi had a pool lift or other means of access for disabled persons. The hotel employee allegedly reported that the hotel had no pool lifts. Thereafter, allegedly, plaintiff’s “agent,” and ADA investigator, visited the hotel, verified that there were no pool lifts, and notified the plaintiff of other ADA violations. The plaintiff claimed that she regularly frequents the area where the hotel is located and plans to do so in the future. If there was a pool lift, plaintiff claims, she would stay at the hotel in the future.
Permanent Light Duty Not Required Under ADA
JD Supra
Employers frequently offer light duty work as a means for injured employees to return to their regular job duties. Light duty is typically associated with employees with Workers’ Compensation related injuries. Earlier this month, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed that the Americans with Disabilities Act does not require employers to agree to a permanent light duty assignment as a form of reasonable accommodation.
In Frazier-White v. Gee, the plaintiff was a Sheriff’s Department employee who was placed on light duty following her development of medical issues. Like most employers, the Department limits the length of time that an employee can remain on light duty, 270 days in this case. At the end of that period, the plaintiff was medically unable to return to her prior job, and requested permanent assignment to the light duty position. The employer declined, and she sued, claiming failure to provide a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of the suit on summary judgment. The court noted that employers cannot use arbitrary maximum periods of time under their policies to limit accommodation obligations. However in this case, the request itself was deemed unreasonable as a matter of law. The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the plaintiff was seeking reassignment to a vacant position. In order to provide a permanent light duty job, the Sheriff’s Department would have had to create an entirely new position, which is not required under the ADA.
In other cases, federal courts have not even reached the reasonable accommodation threshold when considering similar requests. Under the ADA, employers are typically not required to create even temporary light duty positions as an accommodation. Because those positions do not include performance of essential job functions for any existing position, they are not considered a form of reasonable accommodation.
Employers with existing Workers’ Compensation light duty programs sometimes face requests for participation from employees with non-work related injuries. In the past, the EEOC and several federal courts have differed with respect to employers’ obligations to open these programs to all disabled employees. Last year’s Supreme Court decision in the Young case dealt with exclusion of pregnant employees from light duty programs, but its reasoning may apply to ADA claims as well.
Employers are not required to establish light duty programs under the ADA. Those that offer light duty should, at a minimum, set clear maximum periods for light duty eligibility and make certain they communicate those deadlines to employees who participate in the programs.
Our Boss Will Fire Us If We Don't Sign Up to Be a Liver Donor for His Brother
Money Magazine
The owner of the company I work for, which has about 100 employees, has a brother who needs a liver transplant. Two weeks ago, a company-wide memo went out that all employees would be required to undergo testing to see if they were a suitable liver donor for the owner’s brother. No exceptions. I’m in remission for cancer and can’t be an organ donor. What should I do?
Disabled community responds to ADA lawsuits
Hanford Sentinel
Proposed federal legislation that would give small businesses 90 days to respond to lawsuits over their compliance with the American with Disabilities Act has largely been welcomed by small businesses.
State of SD May Face ADA Violations
WNAX
The US Justice Department has notified the State of South Dakota of possible violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act due to lack of community services. The federal report found that many disabled people are in nursing homes, rather than receiving services in their homes or communities.
State didn't move fast enough for feds on ADA issue
Sioux Falls Argus Leader (blog)
South Dakota officials have known for nearly a decade that the state was over-reliant on its use of nursing homes to house patients needing long-term care.
Other states had already moved more aggressively to fund community-based and home health solutions – measures meant to keep disabled adults connected to their families and communities. A 2007 report commissioned by the state found glaring shortfalls between South Dakota and the rest of the nation when it came to community health programs.
But despite that recognition, the state didn’t move fast enough.
That’s the conclusion of a Department of Justice investigation that determined South Dakota is placing too many disabled adults in nursing homes rather than putting them in settings where they could be integrated in their communities.
The report, which was sent to Gov. Dennis Daugaard on Monday, faults the state for moving too slowly, resulting in violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that prohibits states from segregating persons with disabilities from the broader community. South Dakota’s reliance on nursing homes means that some patients who could have prospered in their homes were instead sent away from their communities to reside in a nursing home.