Extended medical leave not a “reasonable” accommodation under ADA, court says
Lexology
This week, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a “multimonth leave of absence is beyond the scope of a reasonable accommodation” under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
In doing so, the court rejected longstanding guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that a long-term medical leave is a reasonable accommodation when the leave is (1) definite and time-limited (not open ended); (2) requested in advance; and (3) likely to enable the employee to perform the essential job functions on return. Noting that under the EEOC’s position “the length of leave does not matter,” the court characterized it as an “open-ended extension” of leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act.
Working From Home as a Reasonable Accommodation Under the ADA: Credeur v. State of Louisiana
Lexology
In today’s hyper-connected society, there are an increasing number of employers who have instituted policies permitting their employees to work from home in certain circumstances. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, however, held that is not the case for litigation attorneys. In-office attendance is an “essential duty” for a litigation attorney in the context of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA).”
Renee Credeur, a litigation attorney working in the Attorney General’s office in Louisiana was granted a temporary accommodation to work from home following a kidney transplant. After approximately six months, her supervisor denied her continuing request to work from home and Credeur filed a lawsuit alleging, among other claims, failure to accommodate under the ADA. The District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana granted summary judgment in favor of the Attorney General’s office and Credeur appealed.
Lengthy Leave of Absence Loses Reasonable Accommodation Status Under the ADA
JD Supra
As employers throughout the country know, what constitutes a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) can be a difficult and very fact-specific inquiry. Frequently, employers are faced with the question of how long they are required to allow an employee to take a leave of absence for their own medical condition. Of course, the EEOC and many courts have taken the position that an individualized assessment must be made, a “bright line” rule of terminating an employee after a maximum amount of leave violates the ADA, and that long-term leaves of absence are a required accommodation.
How to Avoid Retaliation Claims from Employees
Lexology
Most employers know that federal laws prohibit harassment or discrimination against employees for certain protected characteristics, such as age, race, color, sex, religion, national origin, or disability as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”). However, employers should also be aware that federal law also prohibits employers from retaliating against an employee who engages in activity protected by the federal anti-harassment/anti-discrimination laws.
Department of Interior investigating ADA complaint in Clyde
Port Clinton News Herald
The Department of Interior's Civil Rights Division has asked the city to address park accessibility issues raised in an American with Disabilities Act complaint filed by residents John and Jan Brewer.
In a Sept. 19 letter, the department asked City Manager Paul Fiser to address the alleged ADA violations and provide a timeline for fixing possible deficiencies by Oct. 31.
Concerns raised by the Brewers included multiple inclusion issues involving parking and ADA accessibility at Gus Wolf Park, Limerick Park, Community Park's upper and lower levels, Hurd Park's trail, Hendricks Park and the Anderson Depot Plaza.
United States: ADA Accessibility, A Must For All Websites?
Mondaq News Alerts
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.
United States: 7th Circuit Holds Long-Term Leave Is Not A Reasonable Accommodation Under The ADA
Mondaq News Alerts
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.
Plaintiff, a former employee of Heartland Woodcraft ("Heartland"), developed chronic back problems and became unable to work. After exhausting his Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave, he informed Heartland that he needed surgery, which would require him to be out of work for two to three additional months. Heartland responded that his employment would terminate at the end of his FMLA leave and he could reapply when he was able to return to work. After recovering from surgery and being cleared to return to work, rather than reapplying, the plaintiff sued, alleging that Heartland failed to reasonably accommodate him under the ADA. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Heartland, and Plaintiff appealed.
PPG Industries To Pay $45,250 To Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit
PPG Industries, Inc., a Pittsburgh-based paint manufacturing company, has agreed to pay $45,250 to settle a federal disability discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
According to the EEOC's lawsuit, PPG Industries failed to provide a reasonable accommodation to an employee at its Ferndale, Mich., plant, who was placed on a six-month medical restriction prohibiting him from driving and operating heavy machinery as a result of his having suffered a seizure. Instead of accommodating the employee, PPG Industries fired him, the EEOC said.
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires an employer to provide a reasonable accommodation for an employee's disability unless the employer would suffer an undue hardship. The EEOC filed its lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District Court of Michigan (EEOC v. PPG Industries, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-12304) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation resolution through its conciliation process.
In addition to monetary relief, the two-year consent decree settling the suit requires PPG Industries to provide training to its employees on its obligations under the ADA. The decree also requires the company to post a notice on its bulletin boards which reaffirms its obligations under the ADA.
Whole Foods Market Sued by EEOC for Disability Discrimination
"America's Healthiest Grocery Store," Whole Foods Market Group, Inc. dba Whole Foods Market, headquartered in Austin, Texas, denied a reasonable accommodation to a cashier with polycystic kidney disease and then fired her because of her disability, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit.
According to the EEOC's suit, Whole Foods hired Diane Butler in 2005 as a cashier for a facility in Raleigh, N.C. Butler has polycystic kidney disease, a genetic disease causing uncontrolled growth of cysts in the kidney, eventually leading to kidney failure. In 2009, while working for Whole Foods, Butler had a kidney transplant. In December 2015, Butler missed work on two occasions because she had been hospitalized and needed to visit the doctor because of her kidney. Although Butler informed the company she needed time off due to her kidney impairment, Whole Foods terminated Butler because of her absences.
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires employers to offer reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities. The EEOC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc. d/b/a Whole Foods Market; Civil Action No_5:17-cv-00494-FL) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The agency seeks back pay for Butler along with compensatory damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief.
EEOC Sues Optimal Solutions & Technologies for Disability Discrimination
Optimal Solutions & Technologies (OST, Inc.), a provider of cyber, engineering, logistics, and managed services, violated federal law when it fired an employee because he had a benign brain tumor, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it announced.
According to the suit, Michael Tyson began working as a senior SharePoint administrator at OST's Hyattsville, Md., location in June 2016. In August 2016, Tyson informed his supervisor that he had a benign brain tumor which would require about six weeks of radiation treatment beginning in October. Tyson explained that the treatments would be scheduled after work and would not affect his ability to perform his job. The EEOC says that on a few different occasions the supervisor shared his concerns with Tyson's colleagues that Tyson would not be able to perform his job because of his medical condition.
Tyson performed his job well and received positive feedback from his managers, the EEOC said. Despite his good job performance, OST abruptly fired Tyson on Sept. 27, 2016, about one month after he disclosed his medical condition and only one week before he was scheduled to begin his radiation treatment.
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits discrimination based on disability. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Optimal Solutions & Technologies (OST, Inc,), Civil Action No. 8:17-cv-02861) in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Southern Division, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. As part of the suit, the EEOC is seeking back pay and compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief prohibiting the company from engaging in any employment practices in the future that discriminate based on disability.
Kessinger Hunter Management Sued By EEOC For Disability Discrimination
Kessinger Hunter Management (KHM), a national commercial property management company with its primary corporate offices in Kansas City, Mo., violated the law when it declined to grant a one-week extension of an employee's medical leave and refused to him a reasonable accommodation, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleged in a lawsuit.
According to EEOC's suit, after KHM granted Richard Shipe an unpaid 30-day leave of absence to recover from surgery, it refused to extend the leave because the extension would violate its 30-day maximum medical leave policy. Shipe requested, as a reasonable accommodation, a short extension of his leave to comply with his doctor's orders, but KHM denied his request and subsequently fired him.
This alleged conduct violated 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.
EEOC Sues Norfolk Southern Corporation For Company-Wide Disability Discrimination
Norfolk Southern Corporation and subsidiary Norfolk Southern Railway Company, a provider of rail-based transportation services in 22 states, violated federal law by disqualifying a class of job applicants and employees from positions at Norfolk Southern based on disabilities, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit the agency filed.
According to the EEOC's lawsuit, Norfolk Southern's medical department subjected a class of workers to unlawful exclusion from employment based on a wide range of actual or perceived disabilities, or a history of such disabilities, disclosed during pre-employment or return-to-work medical evaluations. The EEOC asserts that Norfolk Southern engaged in a practice of medically disqualifying workers without proper consideration of whether, or to what extent, their conditions may or may not affect the workers' ability to safely perform the jobs they sought or already held.
Camber Corporation Sued by EEOC for Disability and Age Discrimination
Defense contractor Camber Corporation violated federal law when it denied an employee a transfer based on his son's medical condition and then fired him, replacing him with someone more than 20 years younger, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a suit.
Camber Corporation is headquartered in Huntsville, Ala. This discrimination took place in Fairfax, Va., where the employee worked for Camber at an office within the U.S. Department of Justice.
Such alleged behavior violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The EEOC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.
"Employers head in the wrong direction if they make employment decisions based on an employee's association with a person with a disability or based on age," said Washington Field Office Acting Director Mindy Weinstein.
Mid-South Extrusion Sued for Disability Discrimination by EEOC
A plastics manufacturer doing business in Monroe, La., violated federal law by firing an employee because of his actual and/or perceived disability, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleged in a lawsuit filed in New Orleans federal district court.
According to the EEOC's lawsuit, Mid-South Extrusion, Inc., discharged maintenance technician Jeffrey Wyant after he informed the company of his 50% lung capacity breathing restriction resulting from undiagnosed childhood tuberculosis, which crystalized and became dormant because of prior exposure to asbestos. Wyant did not require any accommodation and 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 Wyant to determine if his condition affected his ability to perform the essential functions of the position as mandated by the law before discharging him.
Disability discrimination violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC filed suit (Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-01229) in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Monroe Division after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation voluntary settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC is seeking a permanent injunction prohibiting the company from engaging in employment discrimination as well as back pay, compensatory damages, pecuniary losses and punitive damages for Wyant.
EEOC Sues San Diego Company Insideup for Disability Discrimination
InsideUp, Inc., a San Diego-based company, violated federal law when its managers refused to provide an accommodation for an employee with a disability and then fired him shortly after his requests, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), announced in a lawsuit.
According to the EEOC's lawsuit, an employee with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), emphysema and asthma requested an accommodation for his disability. The EEOC charges that InsideUp managers not only refused his request, but also discharged the employee after he requested the accommodation.
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (EEOC v. InsideUp, Inc., Case No.: 3:17-cv-01961-CAB-JMA) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC's suit seeks back pay, compensatory and punitive damages for the employee, as well as injunctive relief intended to prevent further discrimination in the workplace.
STOSSEL: Disabled by government, it happens too often
The News Herald
A third threat to free speech at University of California, Berkeley has led to more censorship than political rioters or college administrators.
It’s the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Berkeley is expensive. Out of state students must pay $60,000 a year. But for five years, Berkeley generously posted 20,000 of its professors’ lectures online. Anyone could watch them for free.
Then government regulators stepped in.
The Americans with Disabilities Act stipulates, “No qualified individual with a disability shall ... be denied the benefits of ... services.”
Attorney Explains Difference between Definition of Disability
LawyersandSettlements.com
Chances are, if you are asked to define disability, it won’t be the same definition as written in your disability insurance policy. Attorney Kristen Gyolai with Fields Law Firm wants you to know that there is a discrepancy between policy holders and how that policy defines disability.