EEOC Issues New Resource Document Addressing Issues Related to Leave and Disability
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today issued a new resource document that addresses the rights of employees with disabilities who seek leave as a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The document is entitled Employer-Provided Leave and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Disability charges filed with the EEOC reached a new high in fiscal year 2015, increasing over 6 percent from the previous year. The ADA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations that allow people with disabilities to perform the essential functions of their jobs, unless it would pose an undue hardship for the employer.
One troubling trend the EEOC has identified in ADA charges is the prevalence of employer policies that deny or unlawfully restrict the use of leave as a reasonable accommodation. These policies often serve as systemic barriers to the employment of workers with disabilities. They may cause many workers to be terminated who otherwise could have returned to work after obtaining needed leave without undue hardship to the employer. EEOC regulations already provide that reasonable accommodations may include leave, potentially including unpaid leave that exceeds a company's normal leave allowances.
This resource is intended to help educate employers and employees about workplace leave under the ADA to prevent discriminatory denials of leave from occurring. It responds to common questions employers and employees have raised about leave requests that concern an employee's disability. The document creates no new agency policy, but it is one in a series of EEOC Resource Documents that explains how existing EEOC policies and guidance apply to specific situations. It consolidates existing guidance on ADA and leave into one place, addressing issues that arise frequently regarding leave as a reasonable accommodation, including the interactive process, maximum leave policies, "100 percent healed" policies, and reassignment. It also provides numerous examples that illustrate existing legal requirements and obligations for both employees and employers.
"Providing employees with a period of leave for medical treatment or recovery can be a critical reasonable accommodation for people with disabilities," said EEOC Chair Jenny Yang. "This resource document explains to employers and employees in a clear and practical way how to approach requests for leave as a reasonable accommodation so that employees can manage their health and employers can meet their business needs."
Employer-Provided Leave and the Americans with Disabilities Act also addresses undue hardship issues, including the amount and/or length of leave required, the frequency of leave, the predictability of intermittent leave, and the impact on the employer's operations and its ability to serve customers and clients in a timely manner.
"I'm pleased that the Commission has created a user-friendly resource document regarding this often complicated area of law," said Commissioner Chai Feldblum.
"I believe it will be helpful to both employers and employees," Commissioner Victoria Lipnic added. "Leave issues often present some of the toughest situations for employers and employees to deal with in our workplaces. This document provides needed one-stop guidance on how the EEOC approaches many of the common issues we see."
EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about EEOC is available on its website at www.eeoc.gov.
Murphy Oil Sued By EEOC for Disability Discrimination and Retaliation
Murphy Oil Corporation, which operates Murphy USA retail gasoline stores typically located in Walmart parking lots in over 20 states, violated federal law by firing a store manager because of his disability, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed last week.
According to EEOC's lawsuit, Murphy USA fired the employee of 10 years instead of providing a reasonable work accommodation as recommended by his doctors for his back impairment. EEOC's suit also claims that the company fired the employee as retaliation immediately after complaining to management about the failure to accommodate his medical restrictions.
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires employers to provide a reasonable accommodation unless it would cause a significant expense or difficulty to the employer. Retaliation against an employee for raising or reporting discrimination to supervisors also violates the ADA. The ADA also protects individuals from coercion, intimidation, threat, harassment, or interference in their exercise of their own rights or their encouragement of someone else's exercise of rights granted by the ADA.
"EEOC is committed to vigorously enforcing the ADA and its retaliation provisions," said David Rivela, EEOC senior trial attorney in EEOC's San Antonio Field Office. "Where efforts to secure voluntary compliance are not successful, we will not hesitate to sue to protect people who assert their rights under the law by reporting discrimination."
EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Del Rio Division (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Murphy Oil Corporation, Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-00048) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The agency seeks back pay, compensatory damages and punitive damages for the victim, as well as injunctive relief.
"When employees with disabilities are qualified and seeking to continue to work with some degree of medical restriction, employers have a legal duty to consider requests for reasonable accommodation," said Eduardo Juarez, supervisory trial attorney for EEOC's San Antonio Field Office. "Firing an employee with a disability simply because an employer does not want to make an accommodation violates the federal law, and EEOC is here to enforce that law."
Employers urged to tread lightly on obesity
Business Insurance
Despite an appeals court ruling that an obese job applicant is not necessarily entitled to protection under anti-discrimination laws, the legal landscape remains far from settled.
The issue is a pressing one for employers in light of statistics that indicate more than one-third of U.S. residents are considered obese, which the American Medical Association classified as a disease in 2013.
Observers say the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling in Melvin A. Morriss III v. BNSF Railway Co. is significant because it apparently is the first to say obesity is not necessarily a disability under the 2008 Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act.