Amsted Rail’s Hiring Practices Violate Disability Discrimination Law, EEOC Charges in Lawsuit
Amsted Industries, Inc. and Amsted Rail Co. Inc., a leader in the manufacture of steel castings for the rail industry, improperly used physical tests and applicants' health histories in the hiring process at their Granite City, Ill., facility, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it announced today. The result of these practices, according to the agency, was to deny employment opportunities to a class of people who had a history of carpal tunnel syndrome or who Amsted believed might develop that condition.
According to the EEOC's suit, during Amsted's hiring process, the company asks applicants if they have a history of carpal tunnel syndrome and gives them a nerve conduction test, even though the most current relevant published medical literature does not support the use of such tests alone, or the use of prior medical history alone, to predict the development of carpal tunnel. Based on the results, Amsted refused to hire Montrell Ingram and at least fifty other applicants because they had a history of carpal tunnel syndrome, tested positive on the nerve conduction test, or both.
Accommodating employees with disabilities due to mental illness
HR.BLR.com
Statistics from the National Alliance on Mental Illness indicate that one-quarter of all American adults will experience some type of mental health issue this year. In light of this, it is not surprising that employers are increasingly being asked to accommodate employees with mental illnesses and that more cases are being brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) involving mental health issues. This article briefly reviews the current state of the law and offers some suggestions to employers on compliance.
Disney Hit With New Autistic Kids Lawsuits; Many More Expected
Deadline.com
Fourteen new individual lawsuits were filed this week against Walt Disney Parks and Resorts for violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act. “The systems, policies and procedures associated with the Disability Access Service which Disney rolled out in October of 2013 were certain to create discrimination against Plaintiffs, and it was obvious that the community of persons with cognitive impairments would be harmed by the DAS,” said the filings in federal court in Florida (read one of them here). Representing 26 families with children with autism and other developmental disorders who visited Disney World, these latest complaints come out of an order late last month by a judge breaking up the group discrimination case against the House of Mouse first filed in April. The filings this week were one per family, as designated by U.S. District Judge Anne C. Conaway.
Mainstream wellness program challenged in EEOC v. Honeywell
Lexology
Despite promulgating a paucity of guidance on what constitutes a “voluntary medical exam” under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), on October 27, 2014, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) alleged in EEOC v. Honeywell, No. 0:14-04517 (D.MN 2014), that Honeywell International, Inc., violated the ADA by requiring participation in medical exams associated with Honeywell’s group health plan and wellness program when it provided financial inducements to incentivize participation. Specifically, the EEOC sought a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota and an expedited preliminary injunction to enjoin Honeywell from reducing any contribution to a health savings account (“HSA”) or imposing any surcharge on an employee because the employee or the employee’s spouse declined to undergo limited biometric testing associated with the wellness program. The EEOC also argued that, in making financial inducements contingent upon participation by an employee’s spouse, Honeywell violated the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (“GINA”). On November 3, 2014, U.S. District Judge Ann D. Montgomery denied the EEOC’s motion for a TRO without reaching the merits.
No rights for the rude: Americans with Disabilities Act does not apply to jerk
Lexology
In Weaving v. City of Hillsboro, the Ninth Circuit recently found that an individual with ADHD was not disabled within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Weaving’s employment as a police officer was terminated due to the personality conflicts he had with his subordinates. Weaving then brought suit against the police department claiming that his ADHD substantially limited his ability to get along with those coworkers. Shockingly, the jury agreed with him and found in his favor to the tune of $770,000!
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit found that his ADHD did not substantially limit a major life activity, and thus he was not entitled to ADA protections. Weaving continually was found to be competent at his job and his interpersonal problems only extended to subordinates, not superiors.
This decision highlights how difficult it can be to draw the line between when to discipline or discharge an unruly employee or when to accommodate that employee pursuant to a disability. Contact legal counsel if you have one of these close calls.
Harkin dismayed by Senate's inaction on extending disability rights
The Gazette: Eastern Iowa Breaking News and Headlines
Sen. Tom Harkin is dismayed that his effort to extend the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act to the international community appears unlikely to gain the Republican support it needs to be ratified by the U.S. Senate.
Washington Workers with Disabilities Struggle to Find a Good Job Fit
Public News Service
Many retailers are hiring seasonal workers for the holidays, but for one group of prospective employees, it isn't easy to land a job.
They are people with disabilities, and their unemployment rate is almost 27 percent. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), employers are asked to make "reasonable accommodations" for some workers with physical and mental challenges.
Dogs: An Office's Best Friend?
JD Supra
Employers allowing pets in the workplace should consider that employees with allergies or phobias may require accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). When implementing pet-friendly policies, employers should consider a "dog-free" area of the office or allowing employees to work remotely when pets are present.
Employers unwilling to allow pets in the workplace may still be obligated to allow service animals, including "seeing-eye" dogs, emotional support animals for mental health conditions, and animals who assist with hearing impairments and seizure disorders. For example, while the ADA requires that support animals[5] be allowed to accompany disabled individuals in "areas of public access," it does not address the issue of service animals in the workplace. Therefore, employers may be obligated to accommodate service animals, including those for emotional disabilities, if the animal is interpreted to be a reasonable accommodation that will not cause undue hardship to the employer.