EEOC Sues Owners of Happy Jack’s Casino For Disability Discrimination
M.G. Oil Company, which operates Happy Jack's Casino in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, violated federal law by refusing to hire an applicant when her drug test showed that she was taking legal prescription drugs for her disability, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed yesterday.
According to Julianne Bowman, EEOC's district director in Chicago, who managed EEOC's pre-suit administrative investigation, Kim Mullaney applied for and received an offer of employment for a position at Happy Jack's Casino. After taking a routine drug test before starting work, Mullaney was told that Happy Jack's Casino was withdrawing the job offer because the test had come back positive. Although Mullaney told Happy Jack's Casino that the test reflected prescription drugs that she took for her disability, and even though she told them that she would provide additional information if needed, Happy Jack's Casino refused to hire her.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, which can include refusing to hire someone for taking lawfully prescribed drugs for a disability.
EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The case, EEOC v. MG. Oil Company d/b/a Happy Jack's Casino, Civil Action No.4:16-cv-04131, was filed in U.S. District Court for South Dakota. The government's litigation effort will be led by Trial Attorney Laurie Vasichek and supervised by EEOC Associate Regional Attorney Jean P. Kamp.
"Employers cannot refuse to hire someone simply because she takes prescription drugs," said John Hendrickson, the regional attorney for EEOC's Chicago District Office. "Ms. Mullaney would have provided Happy Jack's with all the information that it needed to assure itself that the drugs were lawfully prescribed. There is nothing happy about Happy Jack's ignoring the information before its eyes. To the contrary, it is very, very sad."
EEOC Appeal of Wellness Plan Case May Dead-End on Jurisdiction
Bloomberg BNA-
EEOC’s challenge to the validity of a Wisconsin employer’s corporate wellness program under the Americans with Disabilities Act may have hit a jurisdictional roadblock with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ( EEOC v. Flambeau Inc., 7th Cir., No. 16-1402, oral argument 9/15/16 ).
Southern Indiana Mom Sues School District Over Wheelchair Access
WKU Public Radio
The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana has filed a lawsuit against the Warrick County School Corporation, accusing the district of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The lawsuit is on behalf of Mycal Ashby who argues she was excluded from attending her child’s Christmas program two years in a row because the venue did not accommodate her wheelchair. Ashby’s son was a choir member at Loge Elementary School in Boonville. For the past two years, the school held a holiday program at the Warrick County Museum, which is not wheelchair accessible.
Indiana woman sues over lack of wheelchair access to concert
News Sentinel
A woman who uses a wheelchair filed a lawsuit Thursday against a southern Indiana school district because the venue for her child's Christmas show isn't wheelchair accessible.
Phoenix New Times
As a quadriplegic who relies on a wheelchair to get around, Phil Pangrazio doesn't know whether to applaud or condemn a new advocacy group that is patrolling Phoenix parking lots, taking a measuring tape to their handicap-accessible spaces, and suing businesses that don't comply with the standards outlined in the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Fault Line Running Under “No Fault” Attendance Policies
Lexology
“No fault” attendance policies are one popular method among employers to, with consistency, counsel, discipline and, in some instances, terminate employees who rack up excessive absences. Under these policies, the reason for the employee’s absence is usually irrelevant–there’s “no fault” for the absence. These policies typically involve assigning employees a certain number of days that they can miss or be late, known as “occurrences” or “occasions,” without facing discipline. But when the number of absent days or instances of tardiness reaches a set level, the employee is often put on a disciplinary track, which can begin with a write-up or counseling, and end in termination.
Hospital Fires Disabled Therapist (Not Another Such Case!)
Lexology
Not again!
It is “ironic when a hospital, which is dedicated to caring for the health of its patients, ignores the medical concerns of an employee, refuses to even discuss providing a needed workplace modification, and instead fires him because of his disability.”
As you know, I have said this often – in the form of exhorting medical personnel and facilities not to do anything to attract the attention of the EEOC, which – I have repeatedly documented — would like nothing better than to nail healthcare facilities for disability discrimination.
But the quote up top was not mine – it was from Spencer H. Lewis, Jr., the EEOC district director of the Philadelphia District Office, who made it in announcing a new EEOC lawsuit against a Maryland hospital. And it confirms what I always say – that the EEOC loves to point out the “irony” of those dedicated to the caring professions allegedly discriminating against disabled employees.
The ADA and Entrepreneurial Start-ups
SHRM (blog)
I know that many start-ups don’t consider human resources related laws when they are getting started. They focus on getting their product or service up and running, whether they have the suppliers they need and of course the potential market. If they consider HR at all it is in the realm of payroll. Most federal HR laws don’t kick in until a company has reached 15 employees. The FLSA kicks in at fewer employees if you are bringing revenue of at least a half million dollars. There are however other laws related to HR that you need to pay attention to, as Uber has discovered.