Acme Markets to Pay $60,000 to Resolve EEOC Disability Discrimination Charge
Malvern, Pa.-based ACME Markets, Inc., a supermarket chain that operates 164 stores in Pennsylvania and five other states, will pay $60,000 and provide significant equitable relief to settle a disability discrimination charge filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
Following an investigation, the EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that ACME Markets failed to provide a reasonable accommodation for the disability of a former employee at its Denver, Pa., facility.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits employment discrimination based on disability. It also requires employers to provide a reasonable accommodation to an employee or job applicant with a disability, unless doing so would cause an undue hardship for the employer.
ACME Markets will pay monetary relief to the employee and revise its reasonable accommodation policies. The supermarket chain will hire qualified external trainers to conduct anti-discrimination training and post a notice regarding the settlement. ACME Markets will report to the EEOC on how it handles any future complaints of disability discrimination or denial of a reasonable accommodation, as well as its compliance with the voluntary settlement.
“We applaud ACME Markets for voluntarily resolving this matter and for implementing important policy changes and training to protect the employment rights of individuals with disabilities, including improving its reasonable accommodation policies,” said Jamie R. Williamson, director of the EEOC's Philadelphia District.
Ninth Circuit Benchslaps EEOC’s Perplexing ADA Position Shif
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that an employer may use after-acquired evidence to demonstrate that an employee is not qualified and therefore is not entitled to ADA protection. Anthony v. TRAX International Corporation, No. 18-15662 (9th Cir. April 17, 2020). In reaching this holding, the Court flatly rejected the EEOC’s attempt to disregard its own regulations in support of the plaintiff’s claims.
TRAX hired Anthony as a Technical Writer I. TRAX is a government contractor, and under the terms of the contract, the position required a bachelor’s degree. Anthony suffered from PTSD. When she ran out of FMLA time (which had already been extended), TRAX discharged her. Anthony sued under the ADA claiming discrimination and failure of the interactive process. During the litigation, TRAX learned that Anthony lied on her application and did not have a bachelor’s degree. The trial court awarded summary judgment to TRAX based on this after-acquired evidence because Anthony was never qualified for the position in the first place.
On appeal, the EEOC filed an amicus brief supporting Anthony. The EEOC argued that, although its regulations clearly augured against Anthony’s claims because she was not actually qualified for the position, the Court should ignore the regulations and reject the use of after-acquired evidence when evaluating whether an employee is qualified for a position under the ADA. The EEOC essentially took the position that an employer cannot use after-acquired evidence to prove that a plaintiff was not qualified for the job under the ADA unless the employer discharged the plaintiff due to a lack of qualifications in the first place.
But the Ninth Circuit would have none of this. Describing the EEOC’s argument against its own regulations as perplexing, the Court held that an ADA plaintiff must prove that she is “qualified” under the Act, and an employer may rely on after-acquired evidence to show otherwise. The Court found that Anthony was not qualified under the ADA because she did not have a bachelor’s degree, even if TRAX did not know this at the time it fired her. Because Anthony was not qualified for her position, she was not entitled to a reasonable accommodation, and TRAX was not required to engage in the interactive process before discharging her.
While this is a logical result despite the EEOC’s illogical argument, it is not a complete win for employers. The case is unique because the bachelor’s degree requirement was absolute and the employer had no way to waive it. Where a particular qualification is more malleable, or where the supposed qualification is actually a concocted proxy for disability discrimination, an employer may not fare as well.
Disability advocates can’t bring ADA case vs. Uber
An advocacy group does not have a claim against a ridesharing service it accuses of discriminating against people who use motorized wheelchairs, a federal appeals court held Tuesday.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to revive a lawsuit Access Living of Metropolitan Chicago filed against Uber Technologies Inc. under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Access Living provides people with disabilities with such services as training on independent living skills. It also advocates for equal access for those with disabilities to programs, activities and resources.
Access Living alleges in its suit that Uber fails to provide people who use motorized wheelchairs with the same access to transportation services that others enjoy.
Uber does not ensure enough wheelchair-accessible vehicles are available and instead outsources most requests for such vehicles to local taxi companies, Access Living alleges.
The lack of a sufficient number of the vehicles, it alleges, leads to longer wait times and higher prices for customers who use motorized wheelchairs compared to other customers.
The limited number of wheelchair-accessible vehicles also forces it to pay increased transportation costs when staff members and volunteers who use motorized wheelchairs travel for work, Access Living maintains.
The organization filed its suit under Title III of the ADA, which prohibits discrimination in public accommodations based on a person’s disability.
Travel services are included in Title III’s definition of public accommodations. Access Living maintains Uber is a travel service.
Title III allows “any person who is being subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability” to bring a private action to enforce the title’s provisions.
In its opinion, a panel of the 7th Circuit wrote no federal appeals court has ruled whether Title III’s provisions concerning public accommodations apply to companies that use ridesharing technology.
Fehrer Worker’s ‘Short Stature’ Not Disability Under Bias Law
A temporary worker removed from an assignment at a Fehrer Automotive NA LLC assembly plant because she is 4'6" and her limited reach left her unable to perform the work can’t sue for disability bias, the Northern District of Alabama ruled.
Height is a physical characteristic, not an impairment for purposes of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the court said Tuesday. It looked to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s definition of “physical or mental impairment,” a term used but not defined in the ADA, it said.
5 reasons why accessible ecommerce site design is crucial during COVID-19 lockdowns
The lack of website accessibility isn’t just a problem for disabled people. It’s also damaging to ecommerce businesses that want to reach those customers.
Online Groceries: A Convenience to an Obstacle
Online shopping, once thought of as a convenience, has become an essential service for many but it may be presenting more obstacles than solutions. In some cases, online shopping may be the only way that some persons with disabilities and senior citizens have access to groceries and other necessities in order to avoid contact with the coronavirus. The problem – the majority of websites are inaccessible to people who may need to use assistive technology, such as a screen reader, or keyboard navigation to place their grocery orders.
Many consumers are already complaining about limited delivery windows, but for some persons with disabilities, they may not even be able to add items to their cart. Like many businesses, grocers may not have considered persons who use assistive technologies when building their website. Now, however, that issue is exacerbated by the proliferation of online ordering.
"As a volunteer delivery service, accessibility is always front of mind. Many of the people we serve are living with disabilities that make it difficult to engage with delivery services online. We are constantly learning more and adapting our policies to be more accessible to everyone in need of our services during this pandemic,” said Liam Elkind, co-founder of Invisible Hands. “User1st has been essential to this process, advising us on accessibility and helping us develop a widget for our website to make our service disabled-friendly."
Thirty years after ADA’s passage, the disabled still face medical discrimination
On July 26 of this year we will be celebrating the 30th anniversary of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Despite three decades of improvements on issues pertaining to the rights of persons with disabilities, they continue to face persistent and ongoing discrimination in health care settings.
While the ADA does provide some level of regulation, it has historically been difficult to enforce federal civil rights law in health care related industries, in part due to the lack of technical medical knowledge of individuals and their families. As a result, people with intellectual and developmental disabilities often face little recourse when they experience discrimination in the medical decision-making process.
For example, data suggest that discrimination against people with disabilities in the organ procurement and transplantation process continues to be a persistent problem. A 2008 survey of transplant centers conducted by researchers at Stanford University found that despite the fact that there was little data to support the idea that it would result in poorer health outcomes, 85% of pediatric transplant centers consider neurodevelopmental status as a factor in their determinations of transplant eligibility. In fact, there are more than 50 published cases of kidney transplants for people with intellectual disabilities in which the success rates and medical adherence rates are comparable to that of the general population.