Settlement Agreement: Indiana High School Athletic Association
Connections CSP Will Pay $550,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit
Connections CSP, Inc., a Delaware corporation that provides services in Delaware's correctional facilities and other state institutions, will pay $550,000 and furnish significant equitable relief to resolve a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced.
The EEOC charged that Connections unlawfully enforced an inflexible maximum leave policy. The company fired employees with disabilities who needed additional unpaid leave beyond the required 12 weeks under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Connections also failed to provide other requested reasonable accommodations that would have allowed workers with disabilities to remain employed, such as reassignment to vacant positions. Instead, the EEOC said, Connections placed those employees on FMLA leave and terminated them when their FMLA leave expired.
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits discrimination based on disability. The ADA also requires an employer to provide reasonable accommodations, such as modifying leave policies to grant additional unpaid leave or transferring an employee to a vacant position for which the employee is qualified, unless the employer can prove it would be an undue hardship. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Connections CSP, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00862) in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.
In addition to the $550,000 in monetary relief to five former employees, the three-year consent decree resolving the suit enjoins Connections from violating the ADA in the future. Connections will implement and disseminate a new reasonable accommodation policy to all employees. Connections will provide training on the ADA, its reasonable accommodation policy and other federal anti-discrimination laws. The company will also post a notice regarding the settlement.
"This settlement should encourage all employers to review their leave policies because rigid maximum leave policies can be a barrier to the employment of workers with disabilities," said Jamie R. Williamson, director of EEOC's Philadelphia District Office.
Oncor to Pay $50,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit
Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC, a Dallas-based electric utility company, will pay $50,000 and furnish other relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced.
According to the EEOC's suit, Delores McCraney, a representative who worked for Oncor for 13 years, was fired from Oncor's Dallas headquarters when she refused to sign an agreement promising to abide by a company requirement to disclose, directly to her supervisor, all medications, whether prescription or over-the-counter, that could affect job performance, including dosages and changes of dosages.
The EEOC said that this broad requirement violated the prohibition against medical inquiries of employees under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits discrimination based on disability in the workplace. Under EEOC guidance, inquiries about employees' medications are permitted only in limited circumstances, in positions affecting public safety, and only where the employer can demonstrate that an employee's impaired ability to perform job duties will result in a direct threat.
The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, Case No 3:18-cv-01786, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement. In this case, the EEOC sought back pay plus compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief, including an order barring similar violations in the future.
The three-year consent decree settling the suit, approved by order of U.S. District Judge Sam R. Cummings on, September 9, 2019, prohibits future discrimination and retaliation. In addition to the monetary relief, the company must disseminate its revised policy to all employees; provide annual training regarding the very limited new rule as to medication disclosures; provide avenues for reporting violations of the new policy; and warn of discipline for any manager who continues the prior discriminatory practices.
EEOC Sues Union Pacific Railroad for Disability Discrimination
Union Pacific Railroad Company is violating federal law by refusing to return an employee who once had a brain tumor to work as a custodian, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit.
According to the EEOC's lawsuit, Union Pacific imposed unlawful restrictions on an employee who once had a brain tumor and then used those restrictions to justify its refusal to allow the employee to return to work as a custodian, a position Union Pacific claims is "safety-critical." Without assessing the employee individually, and based solely on the employee's history of having a tumor removed, Union Pacific instituted blanket restrictions out of unfounded fears that the employee would suffer from sudden incapacitation due to seizures, according to the EEOC. Union Pacific ignored the employee's own doctors' assessments that the employee was not at risk for sudden incapacitation and evidence that the employee fully recovered and had never had a seizure post-hospitalization, EEOC alleges.
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits workplace discrimination, including failure to return to work employees who are regarded as disabled but can perform the essential duties of an available job. The EEOC filed suit, EEOC v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-06021, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.
With newly introduced bill, Michigan aims to crack down on fake support animals
A bill just introduced in the Michigan House is aimed at cracking down on the prescription of fake emotional support animals.
House Bill 4910, known as the "misrepresentation of emotional support animals act," would make it illegal for a person to misrepresent themselves as a person with a disability or as someone with an emotional support animal. According to the bill, a housing provider "may request reliable documentation" from that individual's health care provider to confirm the person's need for an emotional support animal.
The bill would also mandate that the prescribing health care provider be licensed in the state of Michigan or in the state the individual lived during the previous 180 days. Additionally, the bill would require the doctor to have a physical office space and have treated the patient for at least six months.
The bill specifically addresses emotional support animals and not service animals. According to the ADA Network, "service animal means any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability." They also note that while "emotional support animals or comfort animals are often used as part of a medical treatment plan as therapy animals, they are not considered service animals under the ADA."
Airlines can't ban service animals by breed, weight but can ban some species
The Department of Transportation says airlines cannot categorically exclude certain breeds of dogs or cats as service animals and cannot ban service animals over a certain weight but can exclude some species, according to its updated statement of enforcement priorities.
The notice came Aug. 8 when the DOT, which regulates the transportation of service and emotional support animals under the Air Carrier Access Act, released its "Final Statement of Enforcement Priorities Regarding Service Animals." Airlines had 30 days after that to conform their rules with the federal policy.
Concerns expressed in recent years by people with disabilities, airlines, flight attendants, and other stakeholders—including the AVMA—have pushed the department to consider changing its requirements for service animals. These concerns include fraudulent representations of pets as assistance animals—that is, service or emotional support animals—and safety issues posed by animals in the cabin.
Website accessibility lawsuits are on the rise: Is your website ADA compliant?
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has been a part of US law from 1990. It was enshrined to ensure equality for individuals with disabilities.
In 2008, a significant amendment was made to the ADA, called Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA).
In 2018, however, the law made news for different reasons – the burgeoning number of lawsuits filed against American business entities, because of their websites being inaccessible in one way or the other, to people with disabilities.
The Surge in Website Accessibility Lawsuits Under ADA
Lawsuits related to website accessibility surged from 814 in 2017 to 2258 in 2018 (almost tripled).
The plaintiffs of these ADA lawsuits allege business websites for not being accessible to people with disabilities.
Sued businesses are from all kinds of industries – Ecommerce, hospitality, retail, online content streaming, food and beverages, education and more. They also differ in sizes, as small businesses even claim to be a target of what critics call “legal extortion”.
Big businesses are also under heavy fire. Among the renowned companies that have been sued already besides Domino’s are – Patagonia, the NBA, Ace Hardware, Reebok, Bed Bath and Beyond, Estee Lauder, and even Amazon.
It’s clear – Title III of the ADA is now being interpreted to extend the scope of compliance to websites and mobile apps.
These implications can no longer be ignored. Companies who offer online services, especially small business owners, must ask themselves if their business website is ADA compliant?
What Can Businesses Do To Comply With The WCAG 2.1 and ADA Regulations?
Now that you understand how important and urgent it is for your website to be ADA compliant, know that for that to happen, it needs to be ‘accessible’.
Web accessibility is about your website being designed (or redesigned) in a way that its content and functionalities are accessible to people with various types of disabilities.
The two guiding blocks for businesses trying to make their websites ADA compliant are:
For a businessperson, it’s almost impossible to conduct a website audit on technical criteria derived from the guidelines of WCAG and Section 508. Elaborate technical problems require elaborate technical solutions, such as an AI powered website accessibility compliance tool.
accessiBe is leading this niche with its automatic website accessibility tools and services, offering vulnerable businesses the solution they need. This AI powered tool can help organizations ensure their websites meet ADA compliance and keep the business safe from ADA lawsuits.
The solution is fully automated, which means it not only makes your existing website ADA compliant but also ensures that any subsequent content you publish is also automatically made ADA compliant.
Parting Thoughts
The writing is on the wall – If your business website is not ADA compliant, a back breaking and business shattering lawsuit could be on the way. Act well in time, make your website accessible.