Disabled man accuses Metairie property owner of violating ADA
The Louisiana Record
A Jefferson Parish man is suing a Metairie property owner, alleging failure to provide proper access for handicapped customers.
Stephen Carrier of Metairie filed a lawsuit May 20 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against Veterans Blvd. Properties LLC alleging violations ofthe Americans with Disabilities Act in denying safe and full access to the property.
EEOC announces settlement with Kroger over disability discrimination allegations
Legal News Line
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that the Kroger Co. of Michigan will pay $33,000 and provide other relief to settle allegations of violating federal disability laws.
An employee at Kroger’s store in Howell, Michigan, was hired as a stock person and then developed a back issue. The company allowed the employee to work as a cashier as a reasonable accommodation but then fired her after discovering the impairment was permanent, EEOC alleged.
This purported action violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Chipotle prevails in suit by worker fired over bad drug reaction
Business Insurance
A restaurant worker who was fired while under the influence of anxiety medication cannot successfully charge her former employer with violating the Americans with Disabilities Act because it fired her based on its neutral drug and alcohol policy, says a federal court.
Lisa Caporicci, a crew member at a South Tampa, Florida, restaurant operated by Denver-based Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. was terminated on June 7, 2013, after, having taken a relatively new medicine for anxiety, she “was very slow, messed up orders and was incoherent,” according to the May 27 ruling by the U.S. District Court in Tampa in Lisa Caporicci v. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc.
ADA Website Accessibility Requirements Delayed
Lexology
When we last discussed the application of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to websites (see our April 2015 post), the US Department of Justice (DOJ) appeared primed to propose the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0, Level AA as the standard required for public accommodations in the private/non-government sector. Then, in late 2015, DOJ announced that it would not finalize regulations to explain what constitutes accessible website content for public accommodations in the private/non-government sector under Title III until fiscal year 2018 at the earliest. Recent DOJ developments now bring into question this 2018 target.
Don't Get Caught In A Web of Claims: ADA Website Accessibility Claims On The Rise
JD Supra
In today’s technology-driven society, retailers are increasingly using the internet to provide information, goods, and services to the public. While having a website is almost a mandatory aspect of operating a retail business, it’s important to ensure that the website does not also market the business to potential lawsuits. Websites have become the new hotbed of litigation brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); retailers who are increasingly relying on their web presence need to take note.
Real Estate Firm Websites Becoming Targets Over ADA Compliance
JD Supra
If you are a "place of public accommodation," you are required to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. "Places of public accommodation" are not just restaurants, office buildings or shopping centers anymore. In a world where internet usage for business and shopping is the norm, the definition is broadening. The U.S. Department of Justice has long taken the position that websites are places of public accommodation under Title III, the section of the ADA that applies to businesses. In 2010, it issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the matter and it has caused significant headaches for businesses that rely heavily on the internet, specifically, the real estate brokerage industry.
New Law Aims to Reduce Frivolous Lawsuits Against Businesses
SHRM
California has a new law intended to curb frivolous lawsuits brought against businesses under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and similar state laws. While Senate Bill 269, enacted May 10, does not eliminate the possibility of such lawsuits, the bill incorporates several important changes that the business community should take advantage of to protect against civil legal disputes.
The Interactive Process in Disability Accommodation
California Lawyer
California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA,” Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 12940, et seq.) prohibits employment discrimination on several grounds including bias based on an employee’s “physical disability, mental disability [and] medical condition….” (Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(a).) This is California’s analog of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA,” 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq.).
When Is Employee Leave A Reasonable Accommodation?
Mondaq News Alerts
Five years ago, faced with mounting frustration of employers of all sizes in their efforts to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that it would provide much-needed guidance on the complex issue of leave as a reasonable accommodation for employees with disabilities. The long wait is finally over.
On May 9, 2016, the EEOC published "Employer-Provided Leave and the Americans with Disabilities Act." The publication notes that disability discrimination charges reached an all-time high in 2015, and a "troubling trend" has developed: employment policies that deny or restrict leave as a reasonable accommodation for employees with disabilities.
Here, after a brief summary of the underlying issue addressed in the publication, we provide important takeaways for employers. The overarching theme: flexibility.
EEOC increasing Title VII, ADA, GINA notice posting penalties to $525
The EEOC has issued a final rule raising the penalty for violations of the notice posting requirements in Title VII, the ADA, and GINA from $210 to $525. The final rule is effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, which occurred on June 2.
GM assembly worker who threatened coworkers has ADA claims tossed
General Motors was granted summary judgment against ADA discrimination and retaliation claims asserted by an assembly worker who suffered from general anxiety disorder. The federal district court in Ohio found that he failed to provide evidence that GM’s given reasons for his disciplinary suspensions—including his threatening behavior towards coworkers—were pretextual. He also failed to show GM’s requirement that he be psychiatrically evaluated before returning to work was unjustified. (McNamara v General Motors, LLC, EDOhio, May 27, 2016, Pearson, B.)
Directive that CEO get rid of ‘old son of a bitches’ and other remarks support ADEA claim
Denying cross-motions for summary judgment on the ADEA and state-law age discrimination claims of a longtime employee and senior VP, a federal district court in Kentucky found triable issues as to whether he was terminated based on his age under both the direct and indirect evidence standards, in light of ageist remarks by the CEO and a directive from his boss to get rid of the “old son of a bitches.” The employee’s retaliation claim failed, however, because there was no evidence that his complaint to a parent company’s general counsel was ever relayed to his employer. (Jecker v Monumental Life Ins Co, WDKy, May 23, 2016, Hale, D.)
Telecommuting as an ADA Accommodation
Lexology
Stop me if you’ve heard this one: an employee calls in to work, states she has a medical condition and can’t come in to work but says she can still do her job from home.
You have your doubts about how much work will get done from home. But you know that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) obliges an employer to provide a reasonable accommodation for a qualified, disabled employee that will enable her to perform the essential functions of the job. And you also know that a reasonable accommodation can, in some cases, mean granting the employee leave time while she recovers or recuperates. “Telecommuting” however, is not leave time and it does not usually entail any realignment of job duties. It is simply a change in work site, if the location of the work site really doesn’t matter, employers should consider whether telecommuting is a viable accommodation.
In our story, the employee had been working remotely from home on and off throughout her high risk pregnancy and corrective surgery, but the employer denied her formalized request for a work-from-home accommodation for the remainder of her pregnancy because company policy didn’t permit “telecommuting.” Showing that it’s sometimes hard to stand on policy when practice says otherwise, a jury in Meachem v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division found that the employee’s physical presence was not an essential function, the employer had shown it was able to accommodate the employee’s work from home and the employee could have and should have been allowed to continue working from home during the remainder of her disability.
Certainly, there will be jobs for which on-site work is a requirement – think production line workers, surveyors, receptionists, etc. But for others, when (despite policy statements and job descriptions to the contrary) it really doesn’t matter where the work is performed, telecommuting might be on the list of reasonable accommodations to consider.