7th Circuit Holds Long-Term Leave Is Not a Reasonable Accommodation Under the ADA
Lexology
In a recent decision in Severson v. Heartland Woodcraft, Inc. (Sept. 20, 2017), the Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling that an employer did not violate the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to provide an employee with a long-term medical leave of absence. Indeed, the court found that “a long-term leave of absence cannot be a reasonable accommodation” under the ADA.
New Law Seeks to Stop Frivolous ADA Barriers to Access Lawsuits
Orlando Political Observer
In response to an explosion of lawsuits alleging that places of public accommodation create barriers-to-access to disabled person, Florida has enacted a novel law that seems to be the first of its kind in the country. The law intends to provide some protection to struggling businesses.
KC company facing lawsuit after firing worker who requested time off to recover from surgery
KSHB
A metro-based commercial property management firm is facing a lawsuit for firing an employee who had sought a one-week medical leave extension to recover from a surgery.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said in a release Wednesday it has filed the suit against Kessinger Hunter Management in a case involving an employee who was hoping to get a one-week extension beyond the company’s 30-day medical leave policy to help recover from a surgery.
The EEOC said that the company denied the request, later firing the employee, which they said is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The EEOC attempted to reach a settlement with the company, but was unable to do so, prompting the suit.
7th Circuit Rejects Extended Medical Leaves of Absence as ADA Accommodation
Workforce Management
This case is a huge win for employers, which grapple daily with the issue of employee medical leaves and the difficulties they present.
Employers Get 'Holy Grail' Ruling on Leave as Job Accommodation
Bloomberg BNA
An injured or ill employee isn’t ready to return to work after using all of her federally protected medical leave. Is the worker entitled to take more leave as an accommodation for her disability? If so, how much more?
Employers may be required to allow workers to take a couple of extra days or weeks off, but long-term medical leave spanning months isn’t required under federal disability rights law, according to a federal appeals court in Chicago.
The Family and Medical Leave Act is the federal law that controls the rights of eligible workers to take job-protected medical leave, the court said. The Americans with Disabilities Act, which covers when a disabled worker may get a job accommodation for a medical condition, “is an anti-discrimination statute, not a medical leave entitlement” ( Severson v. Heartland Woodcraft, Inc. , 2017 BL 332032, 7th Cir., No. 15-3754, 9/20/17 ).
Lexology
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) does not require employers to give workers more leave after their Family and Medical Leave Act allotment runs out, the Seventh Circuit said recently. The Court ruled that employers could fire a worker who requested an extended leave shortly before his scheduled return. It affirmed its prior holdings on this issue, holding that a multi-month additional leave is not a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. In this murky area for employers, the Seventh Circuit provided a degree of certainty regarding the interplay between the ADA and FMLA.
Consistent with its prior holdings, the unanimous panel in Severson v. Heartland Woodcraft Inc. held that the ADA did not require employers to give workers a month long leave beyond their allotment under the Family and Medical Leave Act entitlement to recover from a medical condition The crux of the holding was that the ADA only requires companies to “reasonably accommodate” workers when doing so would allow them to work. But, an employee who cannot work due to long-term medical leave is not a ‘qualified individual’ under the ADA.
Lexology
In a significant ruling for employers, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has held that a request for a two-to-three-month leave of absence is not a reasonable accommodation pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Severson v. Heartland Woodcraft, No. 15-3754 (7th Cir. Sept. 20, 2017).
Companies that have faced an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ADA investigation into their leave practices will know that this decision contradicts the EEOC’s enforcement activity.
The Seventh Circuit has jurisdiction over Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin.
Aldonsa / Oilfield Instrumentation USA To Pay $25,000 To Settle EEOC Disability Lawsuit
Aldonsa, Inc., dba Oilfield Instrumentation, USA, Inc., a Broussard, La.-based offshore equipment supplier, has agreed to pay $25,000 in lost wages and damages and provide other significant relief to settle a disability lawsuit filed last year by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
According to the EEOC's lawsuit, EEOC charged Aldonsa, Inc., with withdrawing a job offer to an applicant because of his diabetes. Carl J. Devalcourt, II, a Type I insulin-dependent diabetic, applied for a service technician position at Oilfield Instrumentation USA. He was interviewed and offered a position. Devalcourt was then sent to the Acadian Health Services Clinic in Lafayette, La., for a physical examination. After being examined, the doctor that determined Devalcourt was in "good physical shape" and his diabetes was "well-controlled." However, the job offer was rescinded based on the doctor's determination that Devalcourt's Type I diabetes made him too "fragile" to work offshore.
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires employers to conduct individualized assessments of employees' ability to perform the essential functions of the position with or without an accommodation.
EEOC Sues Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Texas for Disability Discrimination
BlueCross/Blue Shield of Texas, a Dallas health care company, violated federal law by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation to a hearing-impaired applicant during the application process, resulting in her denial of hire, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed.
According to the EEOC, Sheryl Meador, who is deaf, applied through an online application process for an open claims examiner position with BlueCross/Blue Shield of Texas. After submitting her résumé, she received an e-mail from the company with instructions to complete a 35-minute assessment exam that included an audio portion. Meador was unable to complete the audio portion of the exam because of her disability. There were no captions or other visible accommodations that would allow Meador to complete the audio portion of the assessment exam and thus complete the application process.
EEOC Sues Walmart for Disability Discrimination
Wal-Mart violated federal law when it failed to accommodate a longtime employee because of his disability, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed yesterday.
According to the EEOC's lawsuit, Paul Reina, who has a developmental disability and is deaf and visually impaired, worked as a cart pusher in the Beloit, Wis., Walmart store for 16 years before a new manager started at the store. In his first month, a new store manager suspended Reina and forced him to resubmit medical paperwork in order to keep his reasonable accommodations. Prior to the suspension, Reina performed his job with the accommodation of assistance from a job coach provided by an advocacy organization. Reina's conditions had not changed.
When Reina and his legal guardian submitted new medical paperwork, requesting the continued accommodation of assistance from a job coach, the store cut off communication, the EEOC said. The store's insistence that Reina take a suspension until a new but unnecessary request for accommodations was finalized, coupled with the company's failure to communicate, made a return to work impossible for Reina, the EEOC said.
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-739), in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The lawsuit asks the court to order Wal-Mart to pay Reina appropriate back and front pay as well as compensatory and punitive damages. The lawsuit also seeks a permanent injunction enjoining Wal-Mart from failing to provide reasonable accommodations for disability in the future.
EEOC Sues St. Vincent Hospital for Disability Discrimination
St. Vincent Hospital violated federal law when it failed to transfer an employee to a vacant position for which she was qualified, despite knowing that her restrictions were indefinite, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a suit filed yesterday.
According to the EEOC's complaint, when St. Vincent learned the lifting restrictions caused by Latoya Moore's disabilities were indefinite, St. Vincent required her to take leave at reduced pay, even though Moore was interested in continuing to work. Instead of transferring her to vacant positions she was qualified for and could perform despite her disabilities, St. Vincent later fired her, the EEOC alleged.
The EEOC brought the suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits employers from discriminating against any individual because of disabilities. Under the ADA, it is illegal for an employer to refuse to provide a reasonable accommodation to a qualified individual with a disability unless the employer can demonstrate the accommodation would impose an undue hardship.
EEOC Sues Dollar General for Disability And Genetic Information Discrimination
Dolgencorp, LLC, dba Dollar General Stores, Inc., violated federal law when it rescinded job offers to applicants whose post-offer medical examinations revealed they had disabilities, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today. These post-offer medical examinations also unlawfully solicited family medical history from such job applicants, a form of genetic information, the EEOC further charged.
According to the EEOC's suit, in June 2014, Vincent Jackson applied for a position at a Dollar General Distribution Center in Bessemer, Ala. Jackson received a job offer contingent on successfully completing the company's post-offer medical examination. When Jackson revealed during the examination that he suffered from monocular vision, medical personnel informed him that Dollar General required applicants have corrected 20/50 vision or better in both eyes. As a result, Jackson, despite having performed similar work in the past, was not allowed to work at Dollar General.
Allsup’s Settles EEOC Pregnancy and Disability Discrimination Lawsuit For $950,000
Allsup's Convenience Stores, Inc., owners of over 300 convenience stores in New Mexico and Texas, has agreed to pay $950,000 to settle a pregnancy and disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
The EEOC's lawsuit charged that Allsup's managers and area supervisors subjected pregnant employees to different working conditions because of their pregnancies and/or their pregnancy-related disabilities. The EEOC alleged that Allsup's subjected pregnant employees to negative comments about their pregnancies and gave pregnant employees less favorable tasks and shifts. For example, the EEOC said that some pregnant women were told, "You're too pregnant to continue working," "You are a liability," "Had I known of your pregnancy, you would not have been hired," and "Aren't you ever going to quit having kids?"
The EEOC also alleged that Allsup's denied reasonable accommodations to employees with pregnancy-related disabilities and put them on involuntary unpaid leave. The agency said that Allsup's would not provide extended leave for pregnant employees on bed rest and would not provide reasonable accommodations like modified stocking methods for pregnant employees with lifting restrictions. The EEOC further alleged that Allsup's had a policy of limiting medical leave and that Allsup's fired pregnant employees when they ran out of medical leave without considering when they could return to work.
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which is incorporated into Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, makes discrimination based on pregnancy a form of sex discrimination. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects employees from discrimination because of a disability, including a pregnancy-related disability.
EEOC Sues Otto Candies for Disability Discrimination
Otto Candies, LLC violated federal law when it discriminated against an employee because of his disability, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed here today. Otto Candies, which is based in Des Allemands, La., provides marine transportation services in the Gulf of Mexico. The employee, Shawn McLamb, had been working as a deckhand on one of Otto Candies' many supply vessels.
According to the EEOC's lawsuit, Otto Candies told Mr. McLamb that it was firing him because his recurrent pancreatitis - a condition that can cause infrequent and brief bouts of severe abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting - had rendered him unqualified. In determining that McLamb posed a risk to the safety of himself and others, Otto Candies disregarded the opinions of McLamb's doctor and the U.S. Coast Guard, both of which had determined that he was qualified even with the condition. The company also disregarded its own experience with McLamb, who had worked for ten years with his condition.
The EEOC filed its suit (Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-09584) in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.