Bentonville McDonald’s To Pay $103,000 To Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit
EEOC's lawsuit challenged McDonald's treatment of an employee when the restaurant fired him within days of learning of his HIV-positive status. The suit also charged that the companies' policy of requiring all employees to report the use of prescription medication is also unlawful.
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). EEOC filed suit (Mathews Management and Peach Orchard, Inc. d/b/a McDonald's Store # 32295, Civil Action No. 5:16-CV-05166TLB) in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Fayetteville Division, after first attempting to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.
After EEOC filed suit, the former employee intervened in the case with his own lawsuit and was represented by Joshua L. Bailey of the Hogue Law Firm in Fayetteville, Ark.
In addition to the monetary payment, the companies will also conduct disability training for its managers and revise their policy requiring mandatory disclosure of prescription medications.
"EEOC remains committed to protecting employees from disability discrimination on the job," said Faye A. Williams, regional attorney of the agency's Memphis District Office, which has jurisdiction over Arkansas, Tennessee and portions of Mississippi. "EEOC commends the companies for working with us to quickly resolve this matter prior to trial."
Mathews Management Company owns and operates 34 McDonald's restaurants, including all of the restaurants in Northwest Arkansas and adjacent areas in Missouri and Oklahoma. This includes the store located in Bentonville.
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Finds School Failed to Accommodate Teacher with Mental Disability
Lexology
A recent Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision should serve to remind schools of the importance of engaging in the “interactive process” with employees who may request work-related accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and comparable state laws.
In this case, the plaintiff was a special education teacher living with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The School District that employed her became aware of her diagnosis when she requested a leave of absence and transfer to another school due to a deteriorating relationship with the school principal that led to a PTSD relapse. Her requests were granted, and the teacher was transferred to teach in a program for children with learning disabilities as well as behavioral and emotional disorders.
The new classroom was challenging, and the teacher’s doctor recommended that she take another leave of absence and transfer to a less stressful classroom environment. The leave of absence was granted, but the school denied a work transfer and ultimately terminated the teacher for poor performance.
Subsequently, the teacher filed a federal lawsuit claiming that the school failed to accommodate her PTSD and retaliated against her with an unsatisfactory evaluation because she had requested a work accommodation.
The trial court found that the School District satisfied its obligations under the ADA and engaged in the “interactive process” by granting some but not all of the teacher’s requested accommodations. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed and reversed the lower court’s ruling. The Appeals Court found that the school could not simply grant a partial accommodation and “look the other way” until the teacher could be fired for performance issues related to her disability.
What This Means to You:
· It is not enough to simply refuse an accommodation considered to be unreasonable. School districts, as employers, must engage in the interactive process and make a reasonable attempt to explore alternative accommodations.
· If a breakdown in communication occurs due to actions by the school district, courts may assign liability to the school district for failure to accommodate.
· Performance issues that may be related to an employee’s disability may not be relied upon as grounds for termination.
Deaf woman says Pepsi Center not in compliance with disabilities act, files lawsuit
FOX31 Denver
A class-action lawsuit has been filed against Kroenke Sports and Entertainment and the Pepsi Center on behalf of a deaf woman who said they are not in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Pepsi Center is home to the Nuggets, Avalanche and Mammoth, and plays host to a wide variety of shows and concerts. For most the atmosphere inside the downtown Denver arena is electric in both sight and sound.
But imagine watching a game or concert in silence. You can see what’s in front of you but can’t hear what’s announced, or played overhead. For Kirstin Kurlander, that is life.
Can A Property Owner Disclaim Responsibility For Complying With Accessibility Guidelines?
Mondaq News Alerts
In addition to renting units, many apartment owners/managers rent space for commercial enterprises (such as restaurants and stores) in their properties. Which can make good sense for both – providing a needed service or store with a ready-made group of people living extremely close by. All good, right?
But, remember that when you lease space to a commercial vendor and that tenant modifies the space for a restaurant and/or shop – make sure that the renovated site conforms with the accessibility guidelines in the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). While a landlord and a commercial tenant are certainly free to apportion costs as they see fit (including an indemnification clause) – if a disabled individual sues, both the landlord and commercial tenant will be named as defendants and the plaintiff will seek what is known as joint and several liability against them. An otherwise responsible party will most likely not be able to avoid liability to a plaintiff by simply pointing out that the other party (landlord or tenant) agreed to ensure the space met the accessibility guidelines. Yes, there will be a cross claim, but that will not get you out of the lawsuit. The reason for this policy is that it is presumed to be unfair to the disabled individual not to be able to sue a party who should otherwise be responsible for the failure to comply with the ADA.
What this means for property owners/managers is that if we rent space (and even if the cost of the renovation is agreed to be picked up by the tenant), we are still potentially responsible to ensure that the accessibility requirements are complied with. Another reason you might want to speak with a lawyer like me if you start down the path of renting commercial space in your property.
Is Your Website ADA Compliant?
Lexology
Recently, a number of businesses across the country have become targets of demand letters and lawsuits arising under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Many of these claims have focused on financial institutions. Plaintiffs' firms are working with website testers and advocacy organizations across the country, alleging that websites fail to provide access to people with certain disabilities. These demands and lawsuits aggressively test the limits of how the ADA applies to websites and other online content. Some of these firms even seek to "work constructively" with the banks for a fee. We urge you to review your website and prepare for these challenges accordingly as outlined in this alert and in our recent Emerging Trends article.
The ADA became law in 1990, and it aimed to prohibit discrimination against individuals with disabilities. Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in "places of public accommodation." Initially, the term "places of public accommodation" was applied to physical locations (such as stores, restaurants and other commercial businesses) that were open to the general public. Neither Title III nor any other part of the ADA specifically discusses "website accessibility" for the disabled. However, as the Internet has risen in importance in our lives, many advocates now argue that websites should qualify as "places of public accommodation." The recent demand letters and lawsuits essentially argue that websites must be designed to allow for "access" by people with certain disabilities who may have difficulty viewing, hearing or interacting with some Internet content. Plaintiffs in these lawsuits typically include those with blindness, low vision, deafness, hearing loss, learning disabilities, cognitive limitations, limited movement, speech disabilities, photosensitivity, or epilepsy.
While the Department of Justice (DOJ) has not issued binding rules or regulations on ADA compliance for websites (those are expected sometime in 2018), the DOJ and plaintiffs have consistently suggested that websites will be considered ADA compliant if they follow the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG-2.0) Level AA. We recommend that you review the terms of public settlement agreements between businesses and the DOJ related to website accessibility. These documents provide further insight into how the DOJ interprets the ADA which will be crucial to your evaluation of your website's compliance.
We recommend that you also review your website for accessibility to disabled users and analyze whether your website's accessibility could be improved for people with disabilities such as those described above. There are third-party vendors who can assist with these efforts. Many businesses have already begun the process of improving the accessibility of their website either internally or through the use of a reputable website developer. We recommend continuous documentation of any such efforts.
New Legal Risk for Banks: Websites the Disabled Can't Access
National Mortgage News
It will be at least two years before banks are required to upgrade their consumer websites to make them accessible to consumers with visual and hearing disabilities, but many are being advised to take action now or risk being sued.
The Justice Department in 2010 announced plans to develop formal guidelines for how all companies, not just banks, must make websites accessible to the disabled. The guidelines will include steps such as adding audio for blind consumers and text alternatives for deaf consumers. The DOJ is expected to issue the guidelines in 2018.
But the issue has taken on added urgency of late as some banks have faced legal challenges from plaintiffs' lawyers who claim their websites do not comply with the existing Americans with Disabilities Act.
Questions raised about official IRS non-profit status of ADA serial lawsuit filers
ABC15 Arizona
Valley attorneys and business owners are raising questions about the non-profit status of a controversial group that’s become the nation’s most prolific filer of disability lawsuits.
Advocates for Individuals with Disabilities (AID) has filed more than 1,700 lawsuits in the Phoenix area since February.
Blind lawyer fights for rights of people facing disabilities
Akron Legal News
Recently, Andrew R. Webb called a client to ask her to describe something she had sent him. It was a diagram of the medical equipment he was helping her apply for.
“She said, ‘I don’t know why you’re asking this; I sent you the picture of it,’” Webb said.
Most of the clients he works with communicate over the phone and have no idea.
“I said, ‘I’ll let you in on a little secret: I’m actually blind,’” Webb said.
There was dead silence on the other end of the phone.
“I think for a second she thought I was joking,” Webb said. “After she got over the initial shock, she was actually quite impressed.”
Webb, an Equal Justice Works fellow at Equip for Equality sponsored by Chicago-based McDermott Will & Emery LLP, provides educational materials and legal representation to Illinois residents with disabilities. He helps them access health care and services and appeals insurance providers’ denials when necessary.
Lexology
On October 7, 2016, the General Counsel of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), P. David Lopez, presented "The EEOC's Top Ten Litigation Developments" at an employment law symposium sponsored by Ward and Smith, P.A. He provided an excellent summary of complex issues arising under the federal laws enforced by the EEOC (such as, for example, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and the American With Disabilities Act of 1990). This article summarizes the presentation, which will test whether brevity is indeed "the soul of wit."
The Justice System Continues to Defend Pregnant Workers' Rights
Slate Magazine
Lyndi Trischler was the first officer to become pregnant in the history of the Florence, Kentucky, police department. During her first pregnancy, which began in late 2012, she managed to get put on light duty. But when she got pregnant for a second time in 2014, this was no longer an option. When inquiring into accommodations, which would be necessary for nearly all pregnant women working such a physical job, she was told that the city had issued a directive limiting the availability of light duty only to those who had experienced on-the-job injuries. The only solution offered to her by management was to use up all her paid leave, and then take unpaid leave for the rest of her pregnancy—and lose her health insurance.
Trainers say public often misunderstands role, work of service animals
CatholicPhilly.com
Volunteers with A Veteran’s Best Friend nonprofit in Cabot said service dogs for veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury are often misunderstood by the public.
“They don’t see our disability,” said veteran David Grimm told the Arkansas Catholic, newspaper of the Diocese of Little Rock.
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, it is a civil right for those with disabilities to have a service dog by their side, despite “no pet policies” in places like restaurants and stores because federal guidelines are clear — service dogs are not pets.
New regs on wellness plans could require employers to adjust incentives
MiBiz
New federal regulations that take effect Jan. 1 may require some employers to adjust the incentives they offer to get employees to join their workplace wellness programs.
The changes by the U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission essentially broaden the incentives that will fall under federal regulations designed to ensure that wellness programs remain voluntary and that rewards are kept in check.
Editorial: Suits give ADA a bad name
Ocala
Attorneys who use the Americans with Disabilities Act to shake down small businesses over minor violations are hurting the very people the measure was intended to help.
Passed in 1990, the ADA was a landmark piece of legislation that prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities and requires public accommodations to be accessible. The law has undoubtedly opened up opportunities to people with disabilities as well as ensured their access to businesses and other public places. But the use of the ADA to file frivolous lawsuits risks leading lawmakers to whittle down its protections.
As The Gainesville Sun recently reported, ADA lawsuits over public accommodations have more than doubled nationally in five years and quadrupled in Florida over the same period.