Project Civic Access Agreement: Cedar Rapids, Iowa
Iowa's second largest city will be required to install thousands of new curb ramps and make changes to parks, buildings and parking lots under an Americans with Disabilities Act settlement announced Tuesday.
The far-reaching agreement gives Cedar Rapids four years to complete a transformation that should vastly improve services and access for disabled individuals, including those who use wheelchairs or have vision, hearing and speech problems. City officials say the costs could reach $15 million, and have already borrowed $5 million to start the work.
Sharp Healthcare Sued by EEOC for Disability Discrimination
Sharp HealthCare, an operator of hospitals and medical facilities, violated federal law when it denied hire to a job applicant because it perceived her as disabled, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed yesterday.
According to EEOC, in 2012, a job applicant applied for a surgical scrub technician position at the Sharp Memorial Outpatient Pavilion, a surgical center in San Diego. The job applicant was offered the position contingent upon the passage of a post-offer medical examination. However, EEOC said that Sharp rescinded its employment offer after the exam due to a perceived disability. Sharp regarded her as disabled due to a minor ankle ailment that would not have affected her job performance, EEOC said. After the denial of hire, the applicant was hired into the same position at another medical facility.
EEOC filed its lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California (EEOC v. Sharp HealthCare, Case No. 3:15-cv-01936-H-KSC), after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. In its suit, EEOC alleged that the health care provider discriminated against the job applicant due to a perceived disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The EEOC's suit seeks back pay and compensatory damages on behalf of the applicant, and injunctive relief to prevent future disability discrimination.
Feds find Amtrak violated access rules for disabled passenger
The Hill
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has ruled that an Amtrak station in Richmond, Va. violates federal rules for providing access to disabled passengers.
The agency said the company's Staples Mill Road station in Richmond does not provide closed captioning on signs for passengers who have hearing disabilities, according to the disAbility Law Center of Virginia, which filed a complaint on behalf of a deaf passenger who, in 2014, nearly missed a train because he name was called over a loudspeaker that he could not hear from.
“Twenty five years after the passage of the ADA [Americans with Disabilities Act], there is no excuse for Amtrak to be failing these customers,” disAbility Law Center of Virginia Director Colleen Miller said in a statement celebrating the decision.
Death Threats Lead To Employer's ADA Victory
JD Supra
It is rare that the most employee-friendly of all federal appellate courts cites “common sense” in support of one of its decisions. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently did just that, however, dismissing a disability discrimination claim filed by an employee who was fired for making death threats against company managers. In Mayo v. PCC Structurals, Inc., the Court ruled that the worker was not a “qualified individual with a disability,” and therefore could not sustain an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) lawsuit.
Hiring advertisements may help avoid claims under the ADA
Lexology
Employers should carefully consider what their hiring advertisements say and include language regarding the essential functions of the positions for which they are hiring; such wording may assist in a discrimination claim. In Kilcrease v. Domenico Transp. Co., Court No. 13-cv-03193-WYD-MJW (D. Colo. Aug. 28, 2015), the employer successfully defended claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as amended and such success was based, in large part, upon the company’s job advertisement which clearly outlined the essential functions of the position.
Employer changes mind, denies accommodation to deaf applicant, heads to jury
Lexology
A federal appellate court ruled that an employer that rescinded an offer of employment to a deaf applicant for a position monitoring plasma donors does not get summary judgment on the applicant’s Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) failure to accommodate claim, and the case should proceed to a jury. The court found the applicant presented two potential accommodations that would overcome her inability to hear audible alarms from donors the reasonableness of which must be determined by a jury – (1) installing visual or vibrating alerts or (2) providing call buttons to donors.
Many Pilsen Businesses Aren't Accessible for the Disabled, Residents Allege
DNAinfo
A group of Pilsen residents with disabilities say the ward's alderman isn't doing enough to improve accessibility in the neighborhood.
Employment Law Commentary - Volume 27, Issue 8, August 2015
JD Supra
The extent of an employer’s duty to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with mental impairments can be difficult to discern, especially in where an adverse action is taken in connection with conduct that is caused by or related to an employee’s cognitive or mental health condition. In a recent decision, Mayo v. PCC Structurals, Inc., the Ninth Circuit has recognized an exception to a well-settled precedent holding that an employee who is terminated for threatening conduct arising from a psychiatric disability may state a claim for disability discrimination because the conduct is, in fact, part of the employee’s disability.
The ADA Standard for Workplace Conduct Violations -
The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) defines disability discrimination to include the use of qualification standards or selection criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or a class of individuals with disabilities, while recognizing an exception where the standard or other selection criteria is used in a way that is both “job-related for the position in question” and “consistent with business necessity.” The EEOC has issued guidance interpreting this exception to mean that an employer may “discipline an individual with a disability for violating a workplace conduct standard if the misconduct resulted from a disability,” provided that the conduct standard is job-related and consistent with business necessity. If the employer is aware of the potential need for a reasonable accommodation, and that accommodation would enable an otherwise-qualified individual with a disability to meet the conduct standard in the future, there is a concomitant obligation on the employer’s part to provide such an accommodation, unless doing so would cause undue hardship.
Conn. Hotels Are Focus of ADA Enforcement by US Attorney's Office
Connecticut Law Tribune
In the 25 years since the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, many public buildings like schools and courthouses have been upgraded to be accessible to those with disabilities. But the law also extends to "places of public accommodation" such as hotels, and federal officials have been pushing in recent months to make hotels around the state accessible too.
The U.S. Attorney's Office recently announced that Comfort Inn & Suites on East Main Street in Meriden had entered into a voluntary agreement in which the hotel's owners agree to make several improvements to bring the facility into compliance with the ADA.
Ailing Employee? Companies Can Call in the Doctors
Corporate Counsel
When it comes to employees with physical or mental health issues, employers have the right to request independent medical examinations, according to Peter Murphy of Shipman & Goodwin. Here are some of his tips for doing so:
- The Americans with Disabilities Act: Murphy says the ADA allows an employer to order an independent medical evaluation of an employee when it “is shown to be job-related and consistent with business necessity.” For example, he says it’s useful when the employee has presented conflicting information on reports. “In such a situation, an examination by an independent health care provider can provide the employer with clarification.”
- Communication: It’s integral that the employer tell the employee why he or she is being ordered to have an independent evaluation, says Murphy. He says a case this year out of the Northern District of California saw an employee ordered to attend an independent psychological examination without any explanation as to why. The district court said the employer’s order must be “objectively reasonable” and without any explanation given to the employee, it was not.
- Termination: If an employee doesn’t attend the independent examination and it’s been deemed to have been ordered for an appropriate reason, the courts have upheld the employer’s right to fire the person, says Murphy.
Association to CDC: Include Hearing Loss in Disability Survey
Associations Now
The Hearing Loss Association of America is requesting a meeting with CDC and White House officials to address why hearing loss was not included in a state-based assessment on the prevalence of disabilities among U.S. adults.