Aspire Health Partners to Pay $115,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit
Aspire Health Partners, a non-profit behavioral health care organization headquartered in Orlando, Florida, will pay $115,000 and furnish other relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.
According to the EEOC’s suit, the employee worked for Aspire for over 20 years, during which she developed and oversaw Aspire’s Village House Program, a community-based prevention program for youth in Orange and Osceola Counties. In 2015, Aspire terminated the employee after she exhausted medical leave taken due to a workplace injury. The employee’s doctor cleared her to work without restrictions shortly thereafter, and, in August 2018, the employee applied for a position within Aspire’s Village House program. Hours before her interview, the former employee was notified that she was ineligible for rehire at Aspire due to medical records in her prior workers’ compensation file.
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division (EEOC v. Aspire Health Partners, Case No. 6:20-cv-1603) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.
In addition to the $115,000 in damages, the two-and-a-half-year consent decree settling the suit requires Aspire to adopt and distribute an updated policy against disability discrimination; conduct training on disability discrimination for its human resources officials; and post a notice.
“The EEOC commends Aspire for quickly reaching a resolution that both compensates the harmed employee and provides for policy changes designed to protect future job applicants from disability discrimination,” said Robert E. Weisberg, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Miami District.
The EEOC’s Tampa Field Office director, Evangeline Hawthorne, added, “We encourage other employers to follow Aspire’s lead and review their disability policies and practices to ensure that workers are not denied opportunities based on inaccurate conclusions about their physical abilities.”
EEOC Sues Trimark Foodcraft for Disability Discrimination
Strategic Equipment, LLC, doing business as TriMark Foodcraft, LLC, a Massachusetts-based company that specializes in the distribution of commercial kitchen equipment and supplies, violated federal law when it denied a reasonable accommodation to an accounts payable clerk and then fired her because of her disability, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.
According to the EEOC’s complaint, the employee was placed at TriMark Foodcraft’s Winston-Salem facility by a temporary staffing agency. Following hospitalization for breathing-related issues about a month later, the employee informed TriMark Foodcraft that she would be returning to work with a personal oxygen device. Instead of allowing the employee to use the device, the company terminated her because of her disability, the EEOC said.
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits discrimination based on disability and requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with a disability unless doing so would be an undue hardship. The EEOC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, Winston Salem Division (EEOC v. Strategic Equipment, LLC d/b/a TriMark Foodcraft, LLC, Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-01000) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its voluntary conciliation process. The EEOC seeks back pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief.
“The obligation to accommodate an employee with a disability so that she can retain her job is a fundamental aspect of the ADA,” said Kara Haden, acting regional attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte District Office. “Employers must provide accommodations that allow individuals to return to productive work when the company can do so without undue hardship.”
Federal judge allows disability rights advocates to sue Lyft
A federal judge ruled Tuesday that disability rights organizations have standing to sue Lyft for allegedly violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The lawsuit, filed in March, was initiated by the Independent Living Resources Center, a California non-profit disability rights organization, and a few other organizations and disabled individuals.
In their complaint, the organizations alleged that Lyft violated the ADA’s nondiscrimination requirements by offering wheelchair-accessible vehicle (WAV) services that are more restrictive (longer wait time and less than 24-hours a day operation) than their non-WAV services and by failing to offer any WAV services in certain counties of the Bay Area.
The organizations invoked section 12184 of the ADA, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability from “full and equal enjoyment of public transportation services,” including those offered by a “private entity that is primarily engaged in the business of transporting people.”
Under section 12184, discrimination includes “a failure to make reasonable modifications in policies … when such modifications are necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities … to individuals with disabilities.”
The organizations contended that Lyft failed to modify its discriminatory policies, practices and procedures as required by Section 12184 and proposed four possible modifications Lyft could implement.
They proposed that Lyft (1) use incentives and marketing to recruit independent contractor drivers to provide WAV services, (2) provide lease or rental options to WAV drivers, (3) partner with third-party providers of WAV services, or (4) use a combination of any of the three propositions.
Lyft, on the other hand, challenged—among other things—the organizations’ standing to pursue legal action against them.
However, the court ruled on Tuesday that the organizations had standing to sue Lyft. It concluded that the inability to access WAV services equivalent to those offered to other customers was a direct injury to the organizations which gave them standing to sue Lyft.
As to whether Lyft discriminated against individuals with disabilities by failing to reasonably modify its policies, the court concluded that a further hearing as to the reasonableness of proposed modifications (2) and (4) was needed. It did, however, rule out proposed modification (1) and (3) as unreasonable.
Your Accommodation Can’t Be That Bad, You Asked For It….
Seyfarth Synopsis: Employees can sometimes sour on jobs they transfer to and, this in turn, can create practical and legal risk for employers, particularly where an employee changed jobs in connection with a disability accommodation. A recent decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, however, makes clear that employees cannot base disability discrimination and retaliation solely on their employer’s decision to accept an accommodation they voluntarily requested – including transfers.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), among other things, requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees qualified to perform the essential functions of their jobs, prohibits employers from discriminating against employees because of their disability, and prohibits employers from retaliating against employees for exercising their rights under the ADA. The ADA does not, however, require employers to provide employees with the reasonable accommodation of their choosing.
What happens, though, when an employer chooses to provide an employee with the accommodation of their choosing? Does the employer’s choice insulate them from ADA discrimination and retaliation liability? To the extent it does, will an employee’s subsequent dissatisfaction with the accommodation change the analysis?
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in its recent decision – Laird v. Fairfax County, Virginia – joined its sister circuits in addressing these questions, and, in doing so, and as shown below, is shining a light on the interaction between employees’ requested accommodations, and the ADA’s prohibitions on discrimination and retaliation.
Viola Laird previously worked in Fairfax County’s Department of Procurement & Material Management. Ms. Laird, who was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, asked her supervisor for unscheduled telework as a reasonable accommodation for her disability. Fairfax County initially agreed to this arrangement but, after the County had issues supervising and keeping Ms. Laird busy while teleworking, proposed a modified – twice per week with required in person attendance for meetings – teleworking arrangement as an accommodation. After the County implemented its revised teleworking accommodation, Ms. Laird filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claiming that the County’s decision to retract its initial teleworking accommodation constituted unlawful disability discrimination.
Ms. Laird and the County began settlement discussions with the EEOC. During these discussions, Ms. Laird represented that a lateral transfer could resolve her dispute with the County. The County accepted her offer and transferred her to a different department performing in a similar position with the same pay and opportunity for promotion. Ms. Laird accepted, and began her new job.
The County, after Ms. Laird did not perform well in her new position, offered to transfer her to yet another job that would have had similar pay and opportunities for promotion as her initial position with the County. This time, however, Ms. Laird rejected the County’s offer, and filed a lawsuit against her employer in federal court.
In her suit, Ms. Laird alleged, among other things, that the County discriminated against her because of her disability and retaliated against her for filing an EEOC charge. Both her disability and retaliation claims relied on the County’s decision to transfer her, both in response to the EEOC settlement discussions, and after her performance in her initial transfer, constituted discriminatory and retaliatory actions. The Fourth Circuit, like the District Court before it, rejected Ms. Laird’s arguments and granted summary judgment for her employer.
The Fourth Circuit held that Ms. Laird could not show that she suffered a so called “adverse action” – typically thought of as — but not limited to — termination or demotion – a key element in both her ADA disability and retaliation claims. In doing so, the Court found that:
- An employer takes an adverse action for purposes of a discrimination claim if it takes an action that adversely affects employment or alters the conditions of the workplace;
- An employer takes an adverse action for purposes of a retaliation claim if it takes an action that may dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination; and
- An employer does not take an adverse action for purposes of a discrimination or retaliation claim if the action it took does not result in some significant detriment to the employee.
Applying these principles, the Court found that Ms. Laird’s claims “fail[ed] for a simple reason: [i]f an employee voluntarily requests a transfer, and the employer agrees to it, there is no actionable adverse action.” Further, the Court noted that “a transfer cannot be because of [an ADA unlawful reason] if it occurred as a result of an employee’s own request.”
This decision highlights that an employee’s subsequent dissatisfaction with an accommodation they requested cannot ordinarily form the basis of an ADA disability or retaliation claim.