Settlement Agreement: U.S. v. New York
Kentucky Fried Chicken Sued By EEOC For Disability Discrimination
Hester Foods, Inc., the operator of a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant franchise in Dublin, Ga., violated federal law by discriminating against an employee because of her disability, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it recently filed.
According to the EEOC's lawsuit, Hester Foods' owner violated federal law by discharging restaurant manager Cynthia Dunson in July 2015 when he found out that she was taking medications prescribed by her doctor for bipolar disorder. The restaurant owner referred to Dunson's medications in obscene terms, the EEOC said, and made her destroy her medications by flushing them down a toilet at the restaurant. When Dunson later told the owner that she planned to continue taking the medications per her doctor's orders, the owner told her not to return to work and fired her.
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC filed suit (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Hester Foods, Inc. d/b/a Kentucky Fried Chicken, Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-000340-DHB-BKE) in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The federal agency seeks back pay, compensatory damages and punitive damages for Dunson, as well as injunctive relief designed to prevent such discrimination in the future.
A blind customer couldn't use Winn-Dixie's website. He sued. Changes are coming
Miami Herald
A Miami federal judge has ruled that Winn-Dixie violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to make its website accessible to blind and visually impaired users.
In a landmark win for civil rights advocates on Monday, the grocery and pharmacy chain has set aside $250,000 to revamp its online site and was ordered to pay the plaintiff’s legal fees.
Jasper settles lawsuit with former policeman for $198000
KFDM-TV News
By Steve W Stewart/KJAS: The Jasper City Council in a special called meeting on Monday voted to settle out of court with a former policeman who sued the city after he was fired from his job. Meanwhile, one councilmember says she disagrees with the settlement, and she says Jasper City Hall has become a drive-thru window for those who want easy money.
Frank Erimias filed suit under the auspices of the Americans with Disabilities Act in November, alleging that he was terminated by Chief Gerald Hall because he refused to work the midnight shift because he has diabetes.
Labor Law: Transgender employees may have rights under the ADA
Richmond.com
While the law remains unclear on whether a transgender employee is entitled to legal protections under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, a federal judge in Pennsylvania has ruled that a transgender employee also may have rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The case involves a transgender female employee who sued outdoor gear retailer Cabela's, claiming she was discriminated against under Title VII and the ADA, and that her employer failed to provide reasonable accommodations under the ADA due to her disability.
Amarillo trucking company pays disabled applicant
Business Management Daily
Flying Star Transport in Amarillo has agreed to settle charges it violated the ADA when it refused to hire a truck driver whose arm had been amputated when the driver was a teenager. The driver had more than 20 years of driving experience when he applied to Flying Star, but the company refused to hire him.
He complained to the EEOC, alleging the company violated the ADA when it regarded him as disabled when he was not.
Flying Star agreed to resolve the matter, but admitted no wrongdoing. The company will pay the driver $65,000 and train its managers about the ADA’s requirements. The driver found a job with another company.
Chris Lazarini Discusses Burden-Shifting Analysis in Discrimination case
JD Supra (press release)
Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini discussed a case in which the plaintiff, a former stockbroker, sued his employer after he was terminated claiming discrimination under the ADA and ADEA. Under these statutes and absent direct evidence of discrimination, claims are subject to a burden-shifting analysis, with a plaintiff bearing the initial burden of showing a prime facie case of discrimination. If a plaintiff meets this burden, the defendant must articulate a non-discriminatory rationale for its actions, and if the defendant does so, the plaintiff must show that defendant's explanation is a pre-text. Because plaintiff could not make a prima facie showing, the court upheld the district court's summary judgment for defendants.