Baywood Home Care to Pay $30,000 under Decree Ending EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit
The EEOC's lawsuit charged that Baywood Home Care violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to provide Laurie Goodnough with a reasonable accommodation, and instead firing her as a home health aide. Goodnough has fibromyalgia and osteoarthritis that substantially limits her walking and bending.
1. A Precedent For Gas Station Accessibility For Disabled Drivers
KWQC 6
It's a big victory for disabled drivers and those who want better accessibility at gas stations. In a lawsuit settled in U.S. District Court in Davenport Thursday, a major convenience store chain agrees to make changes.
The class action suit against Kum & Go, LC stems from ADA violations like inaccessible parking, ramps not done correctly, and drivers unable to get assistance from store clerks to pump gas. Now the company will make modifications at hundreds of locations in nearly a dozen states………………………………
"The agreement reached in this case reflects Kum & Go's ongoing efforts to increase the convenience and accessibility of our goods and services to all of our customers. We have invested, and will continue to invest, substantial sums to improve accessibility at our stores, and in some instances have agreed to offer accessibility options that exceed those required by law. In this regard, today's settlement reflects a collaborative effort between the Plaintiff, as representative of the disabled community, and Kum & Go to make great strides towards ensuring that those with disabilities not only have access to our goods and services, but that they clearly recognize our intention of serving them as our guest."
1. Kum & Go chain settles disabilities lawsuit
Salt Lake Tribune
The Kum & Go convenience store chain agreed Thursday to spend millions of dollars to make changes at more than 400 stores in 11 states to settle a lawsuit that claimed its gas stations failed to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act.
The class-action lawsuit — filed by an Iowa man who uses a wheelchair — alleged the company failed to provide fuel dispensers with operable controls at an appropriate height, didn’t provide accessible parking spaces of an appropriate width and in an appropriate location, and otherwise failed to comply with the ADA.
The West Des Moines-based company does not admit the violations but agreed to make modifications at its stores. The privately held company would not say exactly how much it would spend.
Questioning employees about prescription drugs that could affect performance and safety
JD Supra
Employers often have policies and procedures (frequently included in a drug testing policy) that require their employees to disclose the lawful use of prescription drugs (i.e., per the advice and prescription of a licensed physician) that could impair job performance. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, such policies may violate the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) or the guidelines issued by the Commission. The EEOC has recently taken enforcement actions against employers on this issue, and employers should be aware of the hazards when requiring employees to disclose the use of prescription drugs.
1. EEOC targets “perception of” discrimination under ADA
Lexology
Why it matters: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently provided a reminder to employers about the dangers of violating the “perception of” disability provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). According to a new federal court complaint filed by the agency, a North Carolina restaurant refused to hire a busboy when the owner noticed that one of his arms was amputated above the elbow. In addition to injunctive relief, the lawsuit seeks back pay as well as compensatory and punitive damages for the would-be busboy, who “was not hired because of assumptions made about his abilities based on his arm amputation,” EEOC regional attorney Lynette A. Barnes said in a press release about the action. “Employers must be careful not to violate federal law by making assumptions about people with disabilities.”
Is an employee entitled to take FMLA leave to care for her hospitalized adult child?
Business Management Daily
Q. Would FMLA leave apply to an employee who requests leave time to care for her daughter who is over age 21 and married? The daughter’s illness required hospitalization, but her husband is overseas on active duty with the military.
A. Generally, FMLA leave is only permitted to care for a child who is under 18 years of age. However, FMLA leave is also permitted to care for a child who is over 18 years of age if the child is “incapable of self-care because of a mental or physical disability.”
Under the FMLA regulations, “incapable of self-care” means the individual requires active assistance or supervision to provide daily self-care in three or more of the “activities of daily living” (such as caring appropriately for one’s grooming and hygiene, bathing, dressing and eating) or “instrumental activities of daily living” (such as cooking, cleaning, shopping, taking public transportation, paying bills, maintaining a residence, using telephones and directories or using a post office).
“Physical or mental disability” means a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of an individual (i.e., disabled as defined by the ADA). An adult child’s impairment need not be “long lasting;” a “temporary, non-chronic impairment” can constitute a disability that triggers FMLA leave.
If an adult child is hospitalized, she likely meets the definition of “incapable of self-care.”
1. Parents of disabled upset with SeaWorld
U-T San Diego
Parents of disabled children are crying foul over SeaWorld’s decision to eliminate its long-standing policy of offering free admission to companions of individuals who are unable to come to the San Diego theme park on their own.
SeaWorld San Diego said Wednesday that it changed its decades-long policy last year to make it consistent with the ticket pricing practices at all other SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment properties, which did not offer complimentary admission passes for those who accompanied disabled visitors.
Latest employer wellness plan to draw EEOC fire includes biometric screening requirement
Lexology
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission appears to be implementing an assault on corporate wellness programs based on the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. After staying on the sidelines while the popularity of workplace wellness programs skyrocketed, the EEOC has brought its third lawsuit in about two months alleging that an employer’s wellness program, in violation of the ADA and GINA, was not “voluntary” due to the “large” and “substantial” penalties to those who chose not to participate. EEOC v. Honeywell International, Inc. (D. Minn., filed Oct. 27, 2014). This attack raises complex challenges for employers since the agency has not issued guidance on wellness programs even as other federal statutory schemes permit, and even promote, wellness programs.
Just seven business days after it received the first charge of discrimination, the agency, in a rare procedural move, filed a court action for an expedited hearing and requested a Minnesota federal court to enjoin key provisions of the large employer’s corporate wellness program. The hearing on the request is scheduled for November 3.
According to the EEOC, because Honeywell International’s program was involuntary, the disability-related inquiries and medical examinations within the program, which could reveal lifestyle and health issues of employees and their spouses, violate the ADA.