ADA case highlights need for workplace policies to accommodate disabilities
The Pennsylvania Record
For jobs that place real and necessary physical requirements on employees, employers encounter some challenges to maintain those standards without violating laws protecting individuals with disabilities.
In the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, an employer faces allegations that it violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by firing an employee after he revealed a physical disability.
ADA Documentation Is Key to Compliance
SHRM
HR professionals and managers need to work together to ensure proper documentation of compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), according to David Fram, director of ADA and equal employment opportunity services with the National Employment Law Institute (NELI).
Speaking on Nov. 18 at the NELI Employment Law Conference in Washington, D.C., Fram recommended that managers be trained to recognize when accommodations have been requested and to first try to provide simple, easy fixes.
"How can I help you?" should be managers' mantra when responding to accommodation requests.
HR, meanwhile, should document:
- That the person said that he or she has an impairment.
- That the supervisor asked, "How can I help you?"
- The requested accommodation.
- Whether the manager agreed to the accommodation.
- That the manager refrained from asking for any medical details.
No ADA violation for refusal to reassign worker who wasn’t medically released for even light duty
A hospital did not violate the ADA when it rejected a patient care technician’s application for reassignment to a clerical job while she was medically "off work" due to a back injury, and then terminated her when she failed to respond to its offer to apply for extended personal leave. Dismissing on summary judgment the ADA claims brought by the EEOC on her behalf, a federal court in Texas determined that she was not "otherwise qualified" since at the time she applied for the position, she undisputedly had not been released to return to work in any capacity. Moreover, she did not seek reassignment as a "last resort" since she didn’t explore other accommodations first, such as resuming light duty or seeking additional accommodations for her regular job (EEOC v Methodist Hospitals of Dallas dba Methodist Health System, NDTex, November 4, 2016, Fish, A.).
New information page launched for veterans with disabilities
Caring for veterans returning from service is not only an expression of gratitude but a moral obligation. The EEOC is expanding employment opportunities for those who served our country by vigorously enforcing the law and increasing outreach to employers and veterans communities, thereby reducing barriers that prevent veterans from fulfilling their potential.
AARP Challenges EEOC's Wellness Program Regulations
Lexology
The AARP filed suit against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in D.C. federal court, requesting an injunction to halt the implementation of the EEOC’s new wellness program regulations. AARP—which represents 38 million people over the age of 50—argued that the regulations violate anti-discrimination provisions in both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) by forcing nonparticipating employees to effectively pay a “penalty” in the form of higher insurance premiums than those who elect to share their disability and genetic information with employers. The EEOC regulations, set to take effect in 2017, generally provide that employer wellness programs are voluntary if health coverage is not conditioned on participation and if a penalty for nonparticipation is no more than 30% of an employee’s health insurance premium. But the 30% rule permits a penalty so substantial as to make an employee’s participation involuntary, at an average cost of $1,800 to $5,200 per year, according to the AARP’s complaint.
Narcolepsy: A Real Disability Of A Real Person And Not Just A Legal Case
Lexology
As the writer of a blog on employment I am never at a loss for interesting content. I have always maintained that the workplace is a microcosm of society at large, and so there are always interesting cases, and, more important, real people behind these cases.
It’s good when I am reminded of this.
My post the other day about a new lawsuit brought under the Americans With Disabilities Act by a police officer with narcolepsy was one such post. I talked about not being “chained” to fears, biases or stereotypes against people with disabilities, and commented on an Austin-based detective with narcolepsy who was awarded more than $240,000 by a jury in an ADA “failure to accommodate” case.
I received an email from Julie Flygare who, as her web site notes, is the founder of Project Sleep, a leading narcolepsy spokesperson, published author, blogger and runner, who received her B.A. from Brown University in 2005 and her J.D. from Boston College Law School in 2009.