Mechanic Wins Discrimination Claim After Termination
The Legal Intelligencer
On Dec. 28, 2011, plaintiff Albert Gucker, 61, a mechanic, was constructively discharged from U.S. Steel Corp., in Pittsburgh. He had worked at the company for more than 30 years. Since 2003, he had restrictions on lifting (no more than 30 pounds) and climbing, due to an arthritic knee.
On Dec. 28, Gucker, who had returned to work after a one-month recovery from gallbladder surgery, underwent a return-to-work exam by a company physician. The doctor released him for work with the same 30-pound restriction he had for the past eight years. Five hours later, a new supervisor allegedly told Gucker that his limitations would not be tolerated and that he was to have them removed. The next day, Gucker applied for Social Security disability insurance, and he was determined to be disabled as of Dec. 28.
Gucker sued U.S. Steel on claims of violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA). (The court dismissed Gucker's ADEA claim at trial.)
Gucker's counsel asserted that, despite his work restrictions and ongoing evaluations by company physicians, who regularly released him to work, he had received no complaints or negative reports about his job performance, and there were never any safety issues raised regarding his restrictions.
Following his constructive discharge, Gucker underwent a functional-capacity evaluation by the company, which deemed him unable to work.
Gucker's counsel argued that the evaluation was inaccurate and was performed with the sole intent to eliminate his ability to work at U.S. Steel. Moreover, the evaluation was done while Gucker was off his heart medication. U.S. Steel either knew or should have known the effect it would have on the test, yet it proceeded with the exam, Gucker's counsel asserted.
The defense maintained that no violations to the ADA and PHRA were made, since Gucker failed his functional-capacity evaluation, which accurately concluded that he was physically unfit to continue his duties at U.S. Steel.
The physicians who evaluated Gucker testified about their conclusions and how Gucker was not physically sound to continue working at U.S. Steel.
Gucker claimed that he associated his life with his career at U.S. Steel, and his inability to work there was devastating. Despite his work restrictions, he never fell short of a project or refused a job, Gucker claimed.
Gucker sought to recover punitive and compensatory damages under the ADA, and compensatory damages under the PHRA. His counsel noted that U.S. Steel's net worth was a few billion dollars.
The jury found that Gucker was a qualified individual with a disability and that U.S. Steel should have accommodated him. Jurors determined that U.S. Steel terminated him because of his disability or that he suffered an adverse employment action because of his disability. According to the jury, U.S. Steel did not prove that accommodating Gucker's disability would not be possible because it would threaten his safety or the safety of others. The jury concluded that U.S. Steel terminated Gucker because of his disability and that it had knowledge that it was violating the law or may have been violating the law.
Following a two-week trial in Judge Nora Barry Fischer's courtroom and seven hours of deliberation, Gucker was determined to receive $5.55 million, including $5 million in punitive damages and $550,000 in compensatory damages.
RealEstateRama
The Justice Department announced today that the owners and developers of 71 multi-family housing complexes in four states with more than 2,500 ground-floor units have agreed to pay $350,000 to settle claims that they violated the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act by building apartment complexes that were inaccessible to persons with disabilities. As part of the settlement, the companies also agreed to make substantial retrofits to remove accessibility barriers.
Accomable makes travel accessible
HME News
Airbnb has some competition, at least when it comes to serving customers who have accessibility needs.
A Job Ad Doesn't Need to Be a Job Description
JD Supra
Ah, job descriptions. Boring lists of knowledge, skills, abilities, duties, and education and experience requirements – a description of the “essential functions” of a job. Not compelling reading at the best of times, and for many positions, job descriptions quickly become out of date (or even irrelevant to the actual job) because keeping them updated falls to the bottom of HR’s to-do list. When it’s time to recruit, however, everything changes. Recruiters and hiring managers frantically revise and update job descriptions for use during the recruitment process. Although it’s natural to wait for a recruiting push, in a perfect world the description would be updated much more frequently.
It’s always good to keep a job description current and complete, but remember that a job description isn’t a job ad. Yes, the description sets out all necessary information to explain a job, but it doesn’t serve the same function as an ad. A job ad is a marketing tool that should encourage people to apply – in other words, an advertisement.
Reasonable accommodations and modifications
Santa Monica Daily Press
We’re all familiar with the “no pets” rule in apartments. Property owners like the rule since it can help keep the units in good condition. Many tenants also like it since it helps cut down on noise and other problems. But there are times when the no-pets rule has to be bent – by law.
FMLA and ADA Interplay Quiz: Reinstatement after leave
Compensation.BLR.com
Here, we present a workplace scenario where the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) may both apply. Then we provide relevant information about each law and what advice should be given to the employer or what action should be taken regarding ADA and FMLA interplay.
Website Accessibility Is Good for Business
IT Business Net
Enforcement of the digital accessibility regulations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has been steadily increasing over the years, but there are factors aside from the legal obligations that help make a strong business case as to why attaining accessibility is a good idea. Companies and organizations prosper when they ensure their websites are accessible to all populations, including those living with disabilities, using assistive technology like screen readers, as well the older generation to name a few. Some corporate advantages include:
Financial-- Why would anyone purposely keep a potential customer from buying their product or service? That's exactly what's happening if a website can't be understood by someone using assistive technology, for example. If the user has difficulty navigating a website, they will be unable to make a purchase and that company will have lost business.
Social-- One would be hard pressed to find a business that would intentionally choose to be known as an organization that does not support equal opportunity, or at least find it important enough to pursue. With social media spreading people's opinions like wildfire, the damage of a poor reputation can be hard to fix, and at times can be irreparable.
Technical-- One advantageous consequence of making a website accessible, is that it forces a "clean up" of the site's code. This not only reduces ongoing maintenance time, but can also reduce the server load, speeding processes up overall.
1 in 5 people finds the Internet to be inaccessible, which means 20% of the population is potentially buying from a competitor, or perhaps spreading word about his or her poor experience on an inaccessible website. These are not smart risks to take. Not only is it just a matter of time before the Department of Justice (DOJ) strengthens enforcement of the "Public Accommodation Website Regulations," achieving digital accessibility now makes good business sense in more ways than one.