Harborview / Senior Care Properties Sued By EEOC for Disability Discrimination
A certified nursing assistant with rheumatoid arthritis was denied a reasonable accommodation and then unlawfully fired by a residential rehabilitation facility because of her disability, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit.
According to EEOC's suit, Matthews, N.C.-based Senior Care Properties Inc., d/b/a Harborview Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center in Morehead City, hired Katrina Friend in 2015. Friend has rheumatoid arthritis, an autoimmune disorder that she managed with prescription medication. Without medication, Friend has difficulty picking up or gripping objects. In July 2015, Friend was unable to fill her prescriptions as she had not yet received her insurance card from Harborview, and she experienced an arthritis flare-up. By August 2015, Friend resumed her medication regimen and requested four weeks of light duty to allow the medication to take effect. In response, Harborview placed Friend on unpaid leave, never considered Friend's light duty request, and offered her no other accommodation. Although the company had been informed that Friend could return to full duty at the end of the four weeks for which she requested light duty, Harborview fired Friend for exceeding the company's maximum two-week leave policy.
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires employers to offer reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of North Carolina, Eastern Division (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Senior Care Properties Inc. d/b/a Harborview Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center; Civil Action No. 4:17-cv-00136-FL) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The agency seeks back pay for Friend along with compensatory damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief.
Crain Automotive Holdings Sued by EEOC for Disability Discrimination
Crain Automotive Holdings, Inc., located in Sherwood, Ark., violated federal law when it refused to accommodate an employee and fired her because of her disability, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit.
According to the EEOC's lawsuit, the employee suffers from anxiety, depression, and panic attacks. She attempted to communicate her medical conditions to her supervisors; however, Crain refused to discuss accommodation options with the employee and instead terminated her within days of learning of her disabilities, the EEOC said.
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, Civil Action No. 4:17-cv-627-JLH, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The suit seeks monetary relief in the form of back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, compensation for lost benefits, and an injunction against future discrimination.
EEOC Sues G4s Secure Solutions for Disability Discrimination
G4S Secure Solutions USA, Inc., a Florida-based security firm which provides security services in Warren, Mich., violated federal law by denying a reasonable accommodation to an employee with a disability and then firing her, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charged in a lawsuit.
According to the EEOC's lawsuit, a G4S security officer suffered from mixed connective tissue disease and lupus. For years, security officer worked behind a desk. Without any explanation, her supervisor removed her from her desk job and placed her in a foot patrol position. The officer had trouble working in the foot patrol position because of her medical condition and asked to return to her seated security position as a reasonable accommodation. However, G4S refused her request and ultimately discharged her.
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). After attempting to reach a pre-litigation resolution through its conciliation process, the EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District Court of Michigan (EEOC v. G4S Secure Solutions USA, Inc., Case No. 2:17-CV-13195). The EEOC is seeking monetary relief for the employee and an injunction prohibiting the company from engaging in this type of conduct in the future.
EEOC Sues Prestige Care / Prestige Senior Living For Disability Discrimination
Prestige Care, Inc., Prestige Senior Living, LLC and their affiliates violated federal law when they refused to provide accommodations for employees with disabilities, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today. The EEOC further alleges that the named companies engaged in the practice of denying light duty and leave as an accommodation to employees with disabilities.
According to the EEOC's lawsuit, the Vancouver, Wash.-based companies and their affiliated skilled nursing and/or assisted living facilities had a written policy that required employees be 100% healed while at work. Moreover, the companies would not allow employees to return to work after a medical leave unless they did so without medical restrictions. The EEOC further charges that Prestige and its affiliates discharged employees for exceeding the companies' restrictive leave policy. By doing so, the EEOC alleges that the companies' long-term practices violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The EEOC filed its lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (EEOC v. Prestige Care, Inc, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-01299-AWI-SAB) under the ADA after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement. The EEOC's suit seeks back pay, benefits and compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief intended to prevent any future discrimination in the workplace.
EEOC Sues Volvo Group North America, LLC, For Disability Discrimination
Volvo Group North America, LLC, violated federal law when it refused to hire a qualified worker at its Hagerstown, Md., facility because of his disability, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit.
According to the suit, in February 2015, Volvo made a conditional offer of employment to Michael Files, a recovering drug addict who has not used illegal drugs and has been enrolled in a supervised medication-assisted treatment programs since 2010, for an hourly manufacturing position.
However, when Files informed the company nurse he was taking medically prescribed suboxone during his post-offer physical examination, the nurse informed him Volvo viewed suboxone as a narcotic worse than heroin. When Files reported for his first day of work days later, Volvo's human resources representative informed him they could not hire him because of his suboxone use, the EEOC charges.
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits discrimination based on disability. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Volvo Group North America, LLC, Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-02889) in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Northern Division, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. As part of the suit, the EEOC is seeking back pay and compensatory and punitive damages for Files as well as broad injunctive relief to prevent discrimination there in the future.
Lexology
We have discovered that this same week, in addition to suing Fordham University, the College of Westchester, Iona College and the College of New Rochelle have also been named in class action lawsuits alleging that inaccessible websites violate the Americans with Disabilities Act and other laws.
Emanuel Delacruz, a blind individual, filed a class action lawsuit in Federal District Court in New York, alleging that Fordham University discriminates against disabled persons due to an "inaccessible" website, at www.fordham.edu Delacruz v. Fordham University, Sept 23, 2017, NY U.S. Dist. Ct., South, 1:17-CV-07253.
Lexology
When an employee seeks leave as an accommodation for a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the decision regarding whether to grant or deny the request can be challenging. Employers must look closely at the particular circumstances of every case in order to determine whether the amount of leave requested can be provided to the employee without causing undue hardship to the employer’s business. The fact-intensive nature of this decision makes predicting the length of leave that an employer must provide to an employee difficult, and employers do not know whether their decision will later be second-guessed by a court. Notably, however, a recent decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals alleviates this challenge for employers in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana. In Severson v. Heartland Woodcraft, Inc., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 18197 (7th Cir. Wis. Sept. 20, 2017), the court adopted a bright-line rule instead of using the typical fact-intensive analysis to evaluate whether a leave request constitutes a reasonable accommodation. The Severson court held that long-term leave is never required as an accommodation because an employee who needs extended leave is not a “qualified individual” under the ADA.
Seventh Circuit Sets Proof Paradigm for ADA Interference Claims
JD Supra
Too often, we think of Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) claims in terms of discrimination and failure to accommodate. Employment lawyers typically see interference claims in the context of other employment statutes, such as the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). However, the ADA also includes a provision prohibiting interference. It is unlawful for an employer to “coerce, intimidate, threaten or interfere with any individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his or her having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his or her having aided or encouraged any other individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by the ADA.”
Blind student and Paralympic skier sues Dartmouth over accessibility
DeathRattleSports.com
A student at Dartmouth College who is legally blind is suing the school, claiming it failed to provide her with reasonable accommodations for her disability.