EEOC Sues McLeod Health for Disability Discrimination
McLeod Health, Inc., a South Carolina regional health care organization that operates several medical facilities around Florence, S.C., unlawfully subjected an employee to illegal medical examinations, forced her to go on leave and subsequently fired her because of her disability, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.
According to the EEOC's complaint, Cecelia Whitten has congenital orthopedic abnormalities that, since birth, have caused her to have difficulty standing for long periods, walking long distances and keeping her balance. Whitten began working for McLeod Health in 1984 as a communications specialist. In 2012, McLeod required Whitten to submit to two medical examinations as a result of symptoms related to her disability. Whitten was placed on leave pending the completion of the medical examinations. As a result of one of the medical examinations, McLeod's Occupational Health Department recommended certain job accommodations for Whitten. Around Aug. 13, 2012, McLeod informed Whitten that she could not return to work in her position as a communications specialist because McLeod could not provide her with certain job accommodations. The EEOC said that despite the fact that Whitten could perform her job duties, McLeod did not allow her to return to work but rather fired her on Feb. 12, 2013 when she exhausted her Family and Medical Leave Act leave.
EEOC Sues Taprite Fassco for Sex and Disability Discrimination and Retaliation
Taprite Fassco Manufacturing, Inc., a San Antonio-based supplier of CO2 regulators in the soda and beer industries, violated several federal anti-discrimination laws in its treatment of one of its quality control inspectors, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed today. The EEOC said the company subjected the woman to gender and disability discrimination and unlawfully retaliated against her for complaining.
According to the EEOC's lawsuit, after the quality control inspector, a longtime employee, raised questions to management concerning wage disparity between the sexes among workers at Taprite Fassco's San Antonio plant, management disciplined and demoted her into a less favorable and lower paying assembler position. The employee was physically unable to perform the new job because of her diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis and carpal tunnel syndrome.
Feds investigating Iowa City over ADA compliance
Iowa City Press Citizen
The city of Iowa City has been the subject of a federal investigation for nearly four months, but local officials say they only became aware of the inquiry this week.
In May, the U.S. Department of Justice sent a letter to Mayor Matt Hayek stating that it had received a complaint regarding potential violations by the city of the Americans with Disabilities Act and was opening an investigation into the matter.
The complaint, submitted by the Johnson County Task Force on Aging, alleged that a substantial number of city sidewalks were lacking ADA-compliant curb ramps, restricting the mobility of those in wheelchairs and other ambulatory devices.
The office of the U.S. Attorney Southern District of Iowa told the city it had 30 days to respond to its letter and provide a response to the allegations. But it wasn't until the Press-Citizen, which had obtained a copy of the letter, made inquiries this week that city officials say they became aware of the matter.
1. Disability-Rights Advocates sue over DC's Emergency Plans
The National Law Journal
Washington-area disability-rights advocates this week filed a federal class action against the District of Colombia and its mayor, alleging the city’s emergency plan discriminates against people with disabilities.
Suit: Chemistry teacher fired after classroom break-in triggers PTSD
The Pennsylvania Record
A former science teacher at the Valley Forge Military Academy says that his former employers refused to accommodate him after a break-in into his classroom triggered post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, according to an Americans with Disabilities Act lawsuit filed at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
1. Breast Cancer Survivor Loses Chick-fil-A Job Over Double Mastectomy
The Stir
As if battling breast cancer weren't stressful enough, Daphne Richards is now filing a discrimination case against her employer.
Employment Law: It's safe to fire someone as long as there is no discrimination
Thehour.com
Inquiry: We recently hired a new employee who is not working out well in our company. He refuses to follow our office procedures and he even refuses to talk with much of our staff, including our office manager. Although I, as the owner, have spoken to this individual several times, it is apparent to me that he just doesn't fit into our operation. Can I safely fire this person?
Response: Well, based on the facts that you have given me (which assumes that there are no other significant factors), you probably would be safe in discharging this individual.
This, of course, assumes that he does not have an employment contract. If that were the case, you would have to examine the contract closely to see if the agreement provides for termination under these circumstances.
This also assumes the lack of any facts suggesting a discrimination claim. Usually, such claim would be difficult for the employee to prove since the employee's length of service was so short. This is because if the company was going to discriminate against an individual on the basis of his/her race, color, creed, national origin, sex, the individual would not have been hired in the first place.
One aspect of discrimination which might not apply here or to this particular line of thinking is where the company discovers, for example, where one has a disability after hiring the new employee. Since under the Americans with Disabilities Act, employers with at least 15 employees are not allowed to ask medical questions prior to hiring an individual, if this employer were to discover a disability after hiring the applicant and now wishes to discharge the person a few weeks later, that could be the grounds for a discrimination claim.
Assuming that there are no grounds for discrimination or implied employment contract, no wrongful discharge and no retaliation, the employer is free to exercise his or her right to discharge the employee with or without a reason. Legally, when an employee is hired on a "Employment at Will" basis, the employer does not have to have a reason for firing the employee.
Although employers frequently discharge employees and state that no reason is required because their employment status is one of "Employment at Will," the employer is sometimes carelessly fooling himself because -- even in "Employment at Will" type situations -- employers are still obligated to make sure that they don't discriminate, to make sure that they don't violate state or federal laws, and that they don't commit any torts or wrongdoing or wrongful discharge of their employees. Accordingly, the employer who discharges an employee without a reason and without properly documenting the employee's poor performance may be running a risk of being second guessed by a jury. Need I say more?