Liberty Chrysler Dealerships to Pay $50,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit
Three integrated Nevada-based car dealerships will pay $50,000 to an employee who was fired because of her multiple sclerosis and provide other relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.
Job Accommodations Usually Cheap, but Cost Limits Untested
Bloomberg BNA
Job accommodations sought by workers with disabilities rarely come with a high price tag, but when they do, employers likely won't be able to deny their requests based on cost alone.
That’s the view of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, at least for large employers, including the federal government, EEOC Legal Counsel Peggy Mastroianni said.
The reason is that the Americans with Disabilities Act’s test for proving a requested accommodation poses an undue hardship to an employer’s business may require that the financial resources of the entire entity be considered, not just the resources of the particular department or business unit in which the employee works, she told Bloomberg BNA.
“Large organizations will have a hard time” proving undue hardship based on cost alone, Mastroianni said.
Federal courts seem to be going with the EEOC’s view, said Frank C. Morris Jr. of Epstein Becker & Green in Washington. That may conflict with the ADA’s original intent, he told Bloomberg BNA.
“You could argue that some of the recent court decisions have gone further than the framers of the ADA intended in holding that an accommodation’s cost doesn’t show undue hardship unless it would essentially put a company out of business,” said Morris, co-chairman of the firm's ADA and public accommodations group.
Job hire “lied”, Now wants ADA accommodation?
Oregon Business News
McDonald's ADA class action part of growing trend in Illinois
Legal News Line
Chicago has become a destination for out-of-state plaintiffs who wish to file certain Americans with Disabilities Act lawsuits, a state civil justice reform group says.
A class action lawsuit filed against Illinois-based McDonald’s Corp. by a Louisiana man alleges the company’s drive-through policy keeps blind people from eating at the restaurant during late-night hours. It was recently filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Webinar: Could My Company's Website Violate the Americans with Disabilities Act?
JD Supra
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), places of public accommodation must ensure equal access to the goods and services they offer to disabled individuals. Is a company website subject to the ADA? The answer to that question is not as clear as website operators would like. This is a gray area where the law is unsettled and evolving and the uncertainty has created an opportunity for plaintiffs’ lawyers, who are increasingly filing lawsuits and sending demand letters asserting that businesses’ websites violate Title III of the ADA, which prohibits discrimination based on disability in places of public accommodation.
On a recent webinar, Pepper Hamilton partners Charles S. Marion and Jeffrey M. Goldman had an informative discussion on the applicability of the ADA to company websites, how this area of the law is evolving, current cases surrounding this issue, and what steps your company can take to limit its exposure in this area. Alana Sharenow, Director - Legal Counsel of Dunkin' Brands joined our panel to give an industry perspective to our discussion.
EEOC Releases Sample ADA Notice for Employee Wellness Programs
Lexology
In our June 2, 2016, article summarizing final wellness program regulations issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), we noted the EEOC’s promise to post on its website a sample notice by which employers could satisfy the ADA’s notification requirements. The EEOC has today posted such a sample notice, along with a series of FAQs shedding further light on those requirements.
The ADA notification requirements apply when an employer’s wellness program seeks to collect employee health information, such as through a health risk assessment (“HRA”) or biometric screening. The FAQs make clear that the notice must be given to employees before they provide any health information, and with enough time for them to decide whether to participate in the program.