Gulf Logistics Operating Sued For Disability Discrimination By EEOC
An oil and gas vessel company doing business in the Larose, La., area violated federal law by firing an employee because it perceived him to be disabled, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleged in a lawsuit filed yesterday.
According to the EEOC's lawsuit, Gulf Logistics discharged deckhand Jason Gunderson after seeking assistance from the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) because the company perceived him to be disabled due to his "situational depression" even though he was able to perform the essential functions of his job without any restrictions. The suit further alleged the company did not conduct any intensive individualized assessment of Gunderson's mental impairment, as the law requires, to determine if it affected his ability to perform the essential functions of the position as mandated by the law before discharging him.
EEOC Alleges Wood Group Refused to Hire Worker Because of His Disability
Wood Group PSN, Inc., a global company which provides operations and maintenance to the oil, petrochemical and gas industries, denied employment to an offshore worker because of his disability, the EEOC alleged in a lawsuit.
The suit, filed in United States District Court in the Eastern District of Louisiana, Case No. 2:17-cv-09339, alleges that in June 2015, Calvin McKelroy, a type I insulin-dependent diabetic, was denied employment as a Production Operator because of his medical condition in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, as amended. The suit further alleges that McKelroy had worked on the same platform as a Production Operator for Grand Isle Shipyard for many months without incident. During that employment, McKelroy never experienced any issues related to his disability.
EEOC Sues Rivers Casino for Firing Employee Who Needed Time Off for Cancer Treatment
Rivers Casino in Des Plaines violated federal law prohibiting disability discrimination by denying an employee's request for additional leave to get cancer treatment and then firing him, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit.
According to Julianne Bowman, the EEOC's district director in Chicago, the EEOC's pre-suit investigation revealed that Rivers Casinos wrongfully denied Donnan Lake's request for a reasonable accommodation of a few additional weeks of leave to have surgery related to his cancer. Lake suffers from sarcoma and has required chemotherapy and surgery to treat his cancer.
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for otherwise qualified employees with disabilities, include providing medical leave if does not present an undue burden to the employer.
The EEOC filed yesterday's suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The case (EEOC v. Midwest Gaming LLC, dba Rivers Casino, Civil Action No. 17-cv-6811 was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division and assigned to Judge Rubin Castillo.
"Employers need to be reminded that a limited request for medical leave can be a reasonable accommodation and employers risk violating the law if they summarily deny such requests," said Greg Gochanour, regional attorney of the EEOC's Chicago District Office. "Mr. Lake was a good employee who just needed a little more time to fight his cancer. It is unfortunate that Rivers ignored its obligations under the ADA and fired him while he was trying to fight his cancer."
Lowe’s Companies Sued by EEOC for Disability Discrimination
Lowe's Companies, Inc., a chain of home improvement and hardware stores with locations across the United States, violated federal law when it refused to accommodate a department manager with a disability at its store in Cleburne, Texas, and instead demoted him to a lower-paying position, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.
According to the EEOC's lawsuit, the employee is disabled because of a spinal cord injury that substantially limits the use of his right arm. The employee was hired by Lowe's in 2006 as a customer service associate and was promoted to a department manager in 2008. The company was aware of his disability at the time he was selected for promotion, and he successfully worked as a department manager for six years. The EEOC said that the disability prevents the employee from using power equipment that requires the use of two hands, but that he delegated that task to associates under his supervision. The EEOC claims that in June 2015, Lowe's notified the employee that he could no longer be provided with a reasonable accommodation, and demoted him to a non-supervisory associate position. Because of the demotion, his hourly rate of pay was cut by over $4 an hour.
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which protects employees from discrimination based on their disabilities and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for known disabilities. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Lowe's Companies, Inc., Civil Action No. 4:17-CV-02589-M), after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The agency seeks back pay, reinstatement of the discrimination victim to the department manager position, and compensatory and punitive damages for the employee, as well as injunctive relief.
The ADA Is Not a Medical Leave Entitlement, Seventh Circuit Declares
Lexology
Today’s employers must run their businesses within the competitive environment in which they operate while affording employees an ever-increasing array of leaves. Yet, running a business without a full complement of employees is difficult.
A frequently utilized type of leave is medical leave needed for an employee’s own medical condition taken under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). All too often, an employee goes out on FMLA leave, exhausts his or her FMLA leave entitlement, and requires more time off. The federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires employers to reasonably accommodate a qualified individual with a disability, and more time off may be a form of reasonable accommodation. But how much more time off is reasonable, and isn’t an employer justified in expecting its employees to actually show up for work?
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently answered those questions in Severson v. Heartland Woodcraft, Inc., No. 15-3754 (September 20, 2017). In that case, Raymond Severson worked in a physically demanding job as a fabricator. He took 12 weeks of FMLA leave to deal with back pain, and on his last day of leave, he had back surgery requiring two to three more months of time off. Severson asked his employer to continue his medical leave, but the company denied his request and terminated his employment, inviting him to reapply when he was medically cleared for work. A few months later, Severson got that clearance but never contacted the company. Instead, he sued the company for disability discrimination.
United States: ADA In The Digital Age: Federal Court Strikes Down Inaccessible Website
Mondaq News Alerts
For the first time, a federal district court has granted a verdict finding that a private-sector company violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) because its website was inaccessible to a visually impaired individual. This verdict is likely to lead to a proliferation of the already-growing number of lawsuits filed against private companies, claiming that their websites are "public accommodations" and must be accessible to disabled users.
While this case did not necessarily involve one of the ADA's provisions that management and human resources personnel frequently navigate (e.g., Title I's requirement that employers provide reasonable accommodations to qualifying disabled employees), it has broad implications for any employer that maintains a website.
Web Content Accessibility Under the Americans with Disabilities Act
Lexology
Like most readers, you probably know that the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination based on disability. But you may not know about the surge of cases and enforcement actions that extend the ADA's requirements to websites and mobile applications ("web content").
According to the Department of Justice, "[m]illions of individuals in the United States have disabilities that affect their use of the Web." Many disabled individuals use assistive technology to navigate websites, including speech recognition software, screen readers, or any number of other assistive devices. In addition, disabled individuals may need the ability to resize text, to use keyboard alternatives for mouse commands, or to receive additional time to provide a timed response. Accordingly, courts and regulatory agencies have found that the ADA requires businesses to ensure that disabled individuals can fully and equally enjoy the "goods, services, privileges, advantages or accommodations" offered through websites using assistive technologies.
ADA Accessibility, a Must for All Websites?
Lexology
The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) was enacted to make American society more accessible for people with disabilities. While many business owners may be familiar with physical accessibility improvements such as wheelchair ramps and Braille signs, fewer are aware that the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”), class action plaintiffs’ attorneys and some federal courts alike have reinterpreted ADA accessibility regulations to apply to website operators.
ADA access obligation applies to customers and public as well as employees
Business Management Daily
When thinking about disability accommodations, don’t focus solely on disabled employees. If you serve the public, the ADA requires you to consider your disabled customers’ needs, too.
Example: Just because you don’t have any blind employees, don’t lose sight of your obligation to make your website and other materials accessible to blind customers. That’s a lesson one New York-based retailer recently learned.
Recent case: Dick Blick, a chain of art supply stores in New York, has a website. Victor, who is blind, sued the chain, alleging that the website entirely failed to live up to ADA accessibility standards. Essentially, he claims that because the website doesn’t meet accessibility standards, he has to spend time and money to get to a physical store to make purchases, rather than simply do what other consumers can do—order art supplies online.
The court concluded that the ADA requires more than accessibility in physical locations. If a retailer operates in the virtual realm, its online presence must also be accessible to disabled people.
The court concluded the case could move forward because under the ADA Victor has a substantive right to obtain effective access to Blick’s website to make purchases, learn about products and enjoy the other goods, services, accommodations and privileges that the website provides to the general public. (Andrews v. Blick Art Materials, ED NY, 2017)
The Quiet Attack on the ADA Making Its Way Through Congress
Center For American Progress
In the current political climate, the assault on Americans with disabilities is no longer limited to attempts to strip them of health care, take away the services millions need to live independently and to work, or make deep cuts to programs that help many make ends meet. Now a bill making its way through Congress threatens to roll back the civil rights of people with disabilities by exactly 27 years. The bill, misleadingly titled the ADA Education and Reform Act of 2017, would hack away at the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, the landmark civil rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability and mandates that people with disabilities have “equal opportunity” to participate in American life.
Fat Shaming In The Workplace: Is Calling Someone A 'Big Bottomed Girl’ Actionable?
Above the Law
Multiple choice question: Being “fat” is (a) a medical condition, (b) genetic, (c) a lifestyle choice, or (d) your own lack of discipline.
Who isn’t concerned about their weight? Or, to put it simply, obsessed? Our culture (Hollywood? Madison Avenue? Social media?) encourages this obsession.
And being “fat,” apparently, is the ultimate shame.
Putting medicine and sociology aside, weight is indeed all-consuming, including – or especially – in the workplace. Does it hinder your ability to get hired? To work in “the front office? To be free from “fat shaming?”
The NYC subway has an accessibility problem—can it be fixed?
Curbed NY
Every morning, like many New Yorkers, Chris Pangilinan checks his phone to see if there will be interruptions to his subway commute. There is a mixed bag of possibilities commuters have come to dread: track work, track fires, signal problems, injuries, overcrowded trains, or just unexplained delays.
But Pangilinan’s main concern doesn’t make that list. As he is getting ready to leave for work, he’s thinking about elevators.
Blind man, Cary restaurant settle misunderstanding over guide dog
WRAL.com
What started as a conflict between a business owner and a blind man with a guide dog this week quickly turned into a learning opportunity.
Sean Mealin, who is blind, was thrown out of the Himalayan Range Nepali Restaurant, at 910 NE Maynard Road in Cary, on Wednesday because of his guide dog, Simba.
Mealin said he tried to explain to a hostess that the Americans with Disabilities Act requires businesses to serve customers with guide dogs, but to no avail.
Court Tackles EEOC's Wellness Program Regulations
JD Supra
Wellness programs have been on a pendulum over the past decade, swinging back and forth from “yes you can” to “no you can’t.” However, since the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act guidance specifically authorizing, enhancing and promoting these programs – which soon was followed by the long-awaited Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulations permitting wellness programs under the American’s with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) -- employers thought they finally were on firm ground.