EEOC Issues Final Rules on Employer Wellness Programs

Rules Address Incentives; Protect Confidentiality

WASHINGTON, DC--The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today issued final rules that describe how Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) apply to wellness programs offered by employers that request health information from employees and their spouses. The two rules provide guidance to both employers and employees about how workplace wellness programs can comply with the ADA and GINA consistent with provisions governing wellness programs in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, as amended by the Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act).

Read more here.

Lowe's to Pay $8.6 Million to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit

Retail Home Improvement and Appliance Store Chain Fired Thousands of Workers With Disabilities Due to Rigid Leave Policy, Federal Agency Charges

LOS ANGELES - The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced the approval of the resolution of a nationwide disability discrimination case against home improvement, appliance and hardware giant Lowe's. U.S. District Court Judge André Birotte Jr. approved the consent decree which calls for the distribution of $8.6 million.

Read the story here.

Court gives EEOC broad latitude in bringing bias suits

Chcago Tribune By Kristin Samuelson Tribune reporter 12:07 p.m. CDT, May 16, 2012 The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has been authorized to act on behalf of discrimination victims even if the victims had not been individually identified before a lawsuit was filed, the agency announced Wednesday. The order by Judge Ruben Castillo of U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denies an employer's motion for summary judgment in EEOC vs. United Road Towing. United Road Towing contended that the EEOC did not satisfy administrative requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Full Story: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-court-gives-eeoc-broad-latitude-in-bringing-bias-suits-20120516,0,2100689.story

U.S. Department of Justice postpones ADA requirements for swimming pools and spas

Lexology
Barnes & Thornburg LLP
USA
March 20 2012

On March 20, 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice (the Department) announced an immediate 60-day postponement of the effective date for the accessibility requirements for pools and spas subject to either Title II (state and local government programs) or Title III (places of public accommodation). These requirements will now take effect on May 21, 2012. The Department also is contemplating further extending the effective date, and simultaneously issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) soliciting public comment as to whether the effective date of the pool and spa requirements should be postponed until Sept. 17, 2012, 180 days from the original effective date. The Department indicated that it was taking this action in order to allow pool owners and operators additional time to address certain misunderstandings regarding these requirements and their application to existing pools and spas.

Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=366c6f28-3a7d-4074-bfb5-7109f8662848&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2012-03-26&utm_term=

EEOC issues guidance on the interplay between educational requirements and the ADA

Lexology
Littler Mendelson
Ilyse Schuman
USA
February 16 2012


After an informal discussion letter the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued in November 2011 raised more questions than it answered, the agency decided to release additional guidance on when an employer potentially violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by requiring employees to have a high school diploma. In the discussion letter, the EEOC stated that:

If an employer adopts a high school diploma requirement for a job, and that requirement “screens out” an individual who is unable to graduate because of a learning disability that meets the ADA’s definition of “disability,” the employer may not apply the standard unless it can demonstrate that the diploma requirement is job related and consistent with business necessity. The employer will not be able to make this showing, for example, if the functions in question can easily be performed by someone who does not have a diploma.

Even if the diploma requirement is job related and consistent with business necessity, the employer may still have to determine whether a particular applicant whose learning disability prevents him from meeting it can perform the
essential functions of the job, with or without a reasonable accommodation.

Full story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=193732a6-1125-4a07-baf9-601274a4648d&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2012-02-21&utm_term=

EEOC Issues Qs and As on High School Diploma Requirements

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
What You Should Know:
Questions and Answers about the EEOC and High School Diploma Requirements

Background: On November 17, 2011, the EEOC issued an informal discussion letter about how the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applies to qualification standards for jobs. The letter can be found at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/foia/letters/2011/ada_qualification_standards.html. There has been significant commentary and conjecture about the meaning and scope of the letter. The following questions and answers are meant to clarify these issues.

Question: Have you just made it illegal for businesses to require a high school diploma?


Answer: No. Nothing in the letter prohibits employers from adopting a requirement that a job applicant have a high school diploma. However, an employer may have to allow someone who says that a disability has prevented him from obtaining a high school diploma to demonstrate qualification for the job in some other way.

Question: Are you telling people that they are protected by the ADA if they decide not to graduate from high school? Wouldn’t this create a disincentive to finish high school?


Answer: No. The ADA only protects someone whose disability makes it impossible for him or her to get a diploma. It would not protect someone who simply decided not to get a high school diploma.


Employers may continue to have high school diploma requirements and, in the vast majority of cases, they will not have to make exceptions to them. However, if an applicant tells an employer she cannot meet the requirement because of a disability, an employer may have to allow her to demonstrate the ability to do the job in some other way. This may include considering work experience in the same or similar jobs, or allowing her to demonstrate performance of the job’s essential functions. The employer can require the applicant to demonstrate, perhaps through appropriate documentation, that she has a disability and that the disability actually prevents her from meeting the high school diploma requirement.


Question: So, does that mean the employer must hire the person with a disability?


Answer: No. Even if the applicant with a disability can demonstrate the ability to do the job through some means other than possession of a high school diploma, the employer may still choose the best qualified person for the job. The employer does not have to prefer the applicant with a disability over someone who can perform the job better.

Question: Is the informal discussion letter a new interpretation of the law?


Answer: No. Like all of EEOC’s informal discussion letters, the letter simply applies the existing standards under the ADA and the EEOC's regulations. The EEOC’s informal discussion letters are meant to provide assistance for employers in complying with the laws. In this case the letter was intended to explain how the ADA applies when any job requirement (although a high school diploma was the specific example that we were asked about) excludes someone with a disability from a job.


Question: Is this the first time that a high school diploma requirement has been questioned as a possible violation of employment discrimination law?



Answer: No. The U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1971 that a high school diploma requirement was discriminatory because it had a disparate impact on African Americans who had high school diploma rates far lower than whites in the relevant geographical area, and because the requirement was not job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity. Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971). The courts and the EEOC have consistently applied the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the law ever since, and Congress confirmed it in the Civil Rights Act of 1991.


Additionally, in 2003, EEOC brought a lawsuit on behalf of an employee with an intellectual disability who was fired from her job as a nursing assistant in a residential care facility when the employer adopted a requirement that nursing assistants have high school diplomas. She had worked successfully in the job for four years and had several times tried to obtain her GED, but could not do so because of her disability. Her GED instructors offered to work with the employer to find an alternative way to assess the employee’s ability to do the job, but the employer refused. The employer settled the case with EEOC.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/wysk_high_school_ada.cfm

California Man With Half an Arm Sues Starbucks, Alleging Discrimination

ABC News
By LYNEKA LITTLE | ABC News – Tue, Feb 14, 2012

Starbucks is facing allegations of discrimination from a job applicant who claimed he was "blatantly" discriminated against because of a disability during a job interview at one of the coffee chain's San Diego stores.

In court documents filed on Feb. 8 at the Superior Court of the State of California in the County of San Diego, Eli Pierre, who was born with half of a left arm, alleged he "was not hired for the position because of his disability, despite his capable work history."

Full Story: http://news.yahoo.com/california-man-files-lawsuit-against-starbucks-alleging-discrimination-202046243--abc-news.html

EEOC extends employer recordkeeping requirements to GINA

Lexology
Blank Rome LLP
Stephanie L. Aranyos
USA

February 8 2012

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently published its final rule extending the recordkeeping requirements imposed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to employers covered by Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). This rule will take effect on April 3, 2012.

Title II of GINA prohibits the use of genetic information in making employment decisions, restricts acquisition of genetic information by covered employers and entities, and strictly limits the disclosure of genetic information. GINA covers employers with 15 or more employees, employment agencies, labor unions, joint labor-management training programs, and federal sector employers.

Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a09b0ea7-ee36-4d3f-a780-07f40274fadd&utm_source=lexology+daily+newsfeed&utm_medium=html+email+-+body+-+federal+section&utm_campaign=lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=lexology+daily+newsfeed+2012-02-14&utm_term=

EEOC: High school diploma requirement might violate Americans with Disabilities Act

The Washington Times
David Boyer
January 1, 2012

Employers are facing more uncertainty in the wake of a letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission warning them that requiring a high school diploma from a job applicant might violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The development also has some wondering whether the agency’s advice will result in an educational backlash by creating less of an incentive for some high school students to graduate.


Full Story: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/1/eeoc-high-school-diploma-might-violate-americans-w/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

Careful maintenance of employee medical records may help avoid needless litigation

Lexology.com
Foley & Lardner LLP
John L. Litchfield
USA

January 3 2012

Employers often find themselves in possession of medical information about their employees, particularly when making determinations regarding leaves of absence, disability accommodations, or when implementing employee wellness programs. Recent developments in federal law, however, and guidance from the EEOC have taught that the manner in which this information is maintained can be a ticking litigation time bomb if not diffused correctly.

Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=48a45671-185b-478d-83e8-8ab46e93b8c8&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2012-01-09&utm_term=

EEOC to Employers: Requiring H.S. Diploma May Violate Disabilities Act

The New American
Written by Brian Koenig
Tuesday, 03 January 2012 09:09

Employers across the country are facing new concerns related to federal oversight in hiring, as a letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) warns that requiring a high-school diploma from a job applicant might infringe on the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). The revelation has some employment analysts concerned that the commission’s guidance will generate an educational backlash by shackling the incentive for students to graduate from high school, as well as subjecting employers to frivolous lawsuits and spawning a new industry for lawyers.

Full Story: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/10409-eeoc-to-employers-requiring-hs-diploma-may-violate-disabilities-act

Dodge’s Chicken To Pay $190,000 To Former Employee Fired After Suffering From Seizures

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Press Release 11-28-11

Company Violated ADAAA Disability Law, EEOC Charged
HOT SPRINGS, Ark. – D&H Company, Dodge Brothers, Inc., and Giant Oil Company of Arkansas, Inc., doing business as Savings Station Dodge Stores and Dodge’s Chicken Store, will pay $190,000 to settle a disability lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.
In its lawsuit, the EEOC charged that the companies denied the store leader of their Dodge’s Chicken Store 631 in Hot Springs, Ark., a reasonable accommodation after she suffered from seizures. Because her doctor restricted her from driving, she requested that the employer allow another employee to conduct daily competitor gasoline price surveys while she handled that employee's in-store duties. The defendants denied her request for an accommodation and discharged her.
Denial of a reasonable accommodation to disabled individuals violates Title I of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) as amended by the Americans With Disabilities Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA). The EEOC filed suit on Sept. 28, 2010, No. 6:10-cv-06072, in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Hot Springs Division after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. This case was among the agency’s first lawsuits filed under the ADAAA.
EEOC General Counsel P. David Lopez noted that President Barack Obama recognized October 2011 as National Disability Employment Awareness Month.
“The Commission has devoted considerable attention to ensuring compliance with the ADA through the issuance of policy and public attention,” said Lopez. “As reflected by this case, however, the EEOC, when necessary, is prepared to litigate to ensure that persons with disabilities have fair opportunity for economic independence. Indeed, last fiscal year, the EEOC filed approximately 60 disability discrimination cases.”
Faye A. Williams, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Memphis District Office, which has jurisdiction over Arkansas, added, “Reasonable accommodations allow many individuals with disabilities to work. Employers should understand their obligation to provide an employee with a reasonable accommodation unless it poses an undue hardship. The EEOC remains committed to its responsibility in enforcing the ADA.”
In addition to monetary relief, the terms of the 30-month consent decree require that the defendants create a disability policy in its employee handbook for distribution to all its employees; provide for training under the ADA; maintain records of any disability complaints; provide reports to the EEOC; and post a notice to employees about the lawsuit that includes the EEOC’s contact information.
Defendants own and operate convenience stores and gas retailers in 10 states including Arkansas and Mississippi and collectively employ more than 700 people.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/11-28-11.cfm

Veterans with Disabilities Need Multi-Prong Approach for Employment, EEOC Told at Meeting

US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
11-16-11

Commission Also Votes to Approve Age Discrimination Regulations

WASHINGTON—Veterans with disabilities have unique needs in transitioning to and retaining civilian employment, and many are unaware that they are protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a panel of experts told the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) at a public meeting held today. The panel included representatives from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Department of Labor (DOL), Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Department of Defense (DOD) and private sector stakeholders, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The meeting was one of a series the EEOC has held to examine barriers to employment.
“Today’s Commission meeting provided an important opportunity to learn effective ways to remove barriers to employment for veterans with disabilities,” said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien.
“Veterans with disabilities often remain a distinct segment of the disability community, which challenges traditional avenues of outreach,” said Heather Ansley of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities. Moreover, veterans with disabilities “are not immune to the myths that surround the employment of people with disabilities.”
Panelists pointed out the important role of employment in easing a veteran’s return to civilian life and recovery from injuries. The VA and DOL have programs providing vocational rehabilitation services and job training for veterans with disabilities. DOL also enforces a specific law prohibiting discrimination against former service members—the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Act. Additionally, the DOL’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) insures that federal contractors comply with laws giving veterans priority referrals to job openings and not discriminate on the basis of disability, Claudia Gordon, special assistant to OFCCP director Patricia Shiu told the Commission.
Ruth Fanning, Director of Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Services for the VA, stressed the need for early intervention in the transition from active duty to civilian life. Encouraging injured veterans to plan and work toward civilian career goals “reduces the risk of homelessness, underemployment, or unsuitable employment after discharge from the military.” As George M. Parker, Director of Compliance and Investigations of the Veterans Employment and Training Service (VETS) of the DOL put it, “for wounded and injured veterans, employment can play a significant role in the road to recovery.”
Disabled veterans face special challenges, a number of panelists told the Commission, especially those returning from service in Iraq and Afghanistan who may have traumatic brain injuries (TBI) or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which many employers do not know how to accommodate. The DOL’s Job Accommodation Network (JAN) provides special resources for employers who need to learn more about how to accommodate veterans with PTSD and TBI, said Anne Hirsh, JAN’s co-director.
Ironically, the increased attention to veterans with conditions like TBI, PTSD and other mental health issues has made some employers hesitant to hire veterans at all, believing that all veterans are likely to have these conditions, Ansley told the Commission. Stereotypical views of mental health issues, rooted in suspicion and fear, “often lead to widespread discrimination against people with conditions like PTSD.”
The EEOC works to combat these myths and stereotypes about veterans with disabilities, said EEOC Senior Attorney-Advisor Joyce Walker-Jones. In 2008, the Commission issued two guides—one for veterans, the other for employers—explaining how the ADA and USERRA protect veterans with disabilities. “We issued the guides because we wanted veterans to know what the ADA is, and employers to know that many veterans with disabilities are able to—and want to—work,” she stated.
Other panelists included Dinah Cohen, Director of the Computer/Electronic Accommodations Program of the Department of Defense, and Ray Decker, Assistant Director for Veterans Services at the U.S. Department of Personnel Management.
In an unrelated matter, the Commission voted 3—2 at the meeting to approve the “Final Regulation on Disparate Impact and Reasonable Factors Other than Age” under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The regulation now goes to the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Upon OMB approval, the text of the regulation will be made public in the Federal Register.
The EEOC enforces the federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/11-16-11.cfm

Is having "the flu" a disability?

Lexology.com
Fox Rothschild LLP
Richard B. Cohen
USA
October 24 2011

It is now officially flu season. One may be unlucky enough to contract a simple seasonal flu (jnfluenza A), or really unlucky enough to contract a more serious flu such as the swine flu (from the H1N1 virus).
But is “the flu” a disabling condition under the ADA?
One federal court in Florida found that having the flu is not a disability. In Lewis v. Florida Default Law Group, the plaintiff employee was diagnosed with a seasonal flu but believed she had the H1N1 virus and so informed her employer. When she was terminated for excessive absences, she sued claiming that the real reason for her termination was that she had an “actual disability” and/or that she was regarded by her employer as having a disability.

Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f857878b-e02e-472f-83ef-ef102d3b4274&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Other+states+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2011-10-31&utm_term=

Second Circuit finds that employers may be obligated to accommodate a disabled employee's commute

Lexology.com
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
James R. Hays and Jonathan Sokolowski
USA
October 11 2011

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has held that under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act, employers may be required to assist disabled employees with their commute.
In Nixon-Tinkelman v. N.Y. City Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene, No. 10-3317-cv, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16569 (2d Cir. N.Y. Aug. 10, 2011), plaintiff Barbara Nixon-Tinkelman (“Plaintiff”), who has cancer, heart problems, asthma, and is hearing impaired, brought suit under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act alleging that the New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene (“Defendant” or “DOHMH”) failed to reasonably accommodate her disability. Specifically, following her transfer from Queens to Manhattan, Plaintiff requested that DOHMH accommodate her commute by transferring her back to an office location closer to her home in Queens. DOHMH ultimately denied Plaintiff’s request.

Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=147306f6-6864-4a6c-aa33-83acff69f85e&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Other+top+stories&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2011-10-20&utm_term=

Second Circuit finds that employers may be obligated to accommodate a disabled employee's commute

Lexology.com
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
James R. Hays and Jonathan Sokolowski
USA
October 11 2011

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has held that under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act, employers may be required to assist disabled employees with their commute.
In Nixon-Tinkelman v. N.Y. City Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene, No. 10-3317-cv, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16569 (2d Cir. N.Y. Aug. 10, 2011), plaintiff Barbara Nixon-Tinkelman (“Plaintiff”), who has cancer, heart problems, asthma, and is hearing impaired, brought suit under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act alleging that the New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene (“Defendant” or “DOHMH”) failed to reasonably accommodate her disability. Specifically, following her transfer from Queens to Manhattan, Plaintiff requested that DOHMH accommodate her commute by transferring her back to an office location closer to her home in Queens. DOHMH ultimately denied Plaintiff’s request.

Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=147306f6-6864-4a6c-aa33-83acff69f85e&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2011-10-19&utm_term=

EEOC Files Trio of New Cases under Amended Americans with Disabilities Act

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
9-9-10

WASHINGTON — Taking another step in its commitment to end disability discrimination in employment, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced the filing of three new disability discrimination cases today, charging employers in Georgia, Maryland and Michigan with violations of the recently amended Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA).
The cases — all filed under the broader and simplified definition of disability set forth in the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) — allege discrimination against qualified individuals with diabetes, cancer and severe arthritis.
“The contributions of people with disabilities to the workplace ought to be valued, not rejected based on myths, fears and stereotypes,” said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien. “The ADAAA made clear what the EEOC had always asserted: people with a range of disabilities are protected from unlawful discrimination. We hope that these cases send a clear message that the Commission will vigorously enforce the ADA.”

Full Story: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-9-10a.cfm

EEOC Sues Wal-Mart for Firing Disabled Employee

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
9-19-11

Carlsbad Store Refuses to Accommodate Employee With Cerebral Palsy After More Than 20 Years of Service, Federal Agency Charges
DALLAS — The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today that it has filed suit against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. for refusing to allow a long-term employee with cerebral palsy to return to work after a medical leave because of restrictions imposed by her doctor that would have been temporary.
The EEOC charged in its suit, Case No. 2:11-CV-00834 in U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, that a Carlsbad, N.M., Walmart terminated sales clerk Marcia Arney, who was attempting to return to her job following a medical leave for surgery. The surgery had been necessary due to her disability, cerebral palsy. When Arney, who had worked at the store as a sales clerk for 22 years, showed the store manager a note from her doctor stating that she needed to take periodic breaks, he refused to return her to her job, and instead required that she produce a medical release with no restrictions. The EEOC alleges that the medical restriction could have been accommodated by the giant retailer.
“This skilled employee had decades of experience with customers who recognized and greeted her. She had a loyal customer base that also benefited the store. Not allowing her to return to her job or even discuss her temporary restrictions meant the loss of a loyal employee, and violated the federal law against disability discrimination,” said EEOC Supervisory Trial Attorney Toby Wosk Costas.
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which prohibits disability discrimination in the workplace. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.
The EEOC seeks injunctive relief, including the formulation of policies to prevent and correct disability discrimination. The suit also seeks damages for Ms. Arney and punitive damages against Wal-Mart.
“Employers need to make sure that they understand and comply with the simplified coverage definitions of the ADA Amendments Act, which has been in effect now for over two years, said Robert A. Canino, regional attorney for the Dallas District Office of the EEOC. “Prior skewed interpretations of the law have been corrected by Congress to ensure that persons like Ms. Arney, who suffer from debilitating conditions, are given opportunities to continue their employment through reasonable accommodations.”
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its website at www.eeoc.gov.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-19-11a.cfm

Short-term pregnancy complications found not to be a disability

Lexology.com
Franczek Radelet PC
Lisa A. McGarrity and Abizer Zanzi
USA
September 12 2011

In a case of first impression in a court of appeals, the Seventh Circuit recently ruled that pregnancy-related complications can rise to the level of a "disability" within the meaning of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA). However, such complications, if they are of limited duration and dissipate once a woman gives birth, may not be "substantially limiting." Under those circumstances, no "disability" exists and no duty of reasonable accommodation is owed.
In Serednyj v. Beverly Healthcare, LLC, the plaintiff—who planned, coordinated, and conducted activities for nursing-home residents—became pregnant again shortly after having a miscarriage. She continued to perform her duties, some of which were strenuous, for about two months. When she began to experience spotting and cramping, however, her physician restricted her activities to the point that she was unable to perform many of her duties. Due to her short tenure with the nursing home, she was not eligible for FMLA leave, and her employer let her go. She sued, contending among other things that her employer had failed to provide her with a reasonable accommodation and had otherwise discriminated against her in violation of the ADA.

Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=7ffefe4d-6375-4aa8-a677-a8614920ec93&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2011-09-19&utm_term=

Inaccurate information given in post-offer, pre-hire exam may not be basis for employee’s later discharge

Lexology
Sherman & Howard LLC
Theodore A. Olsen
USA
September 1 2011

The Americans with Disabilities Act permits an employer to require an applicant to pass an employment entrance examination, if the applicant has received a conditional job offer, if the examination inquires into the ability of the applicant to perform job-related functions, if all such entering employees are required to undergo an examination, and if the information obtained is retained separate from other records and is treated as a confidential medical record. A physician who performs such a post-offer, pre-employment examination may not share information from an exam with the employer, even if it apparently disproves an employee's need for a disability accommodation, and an employer may not discipline an employee for giving contradictory information in the pre-employment exam and later on the job. Blanco v. Bath Iron Works, No. 2:10-cv-00429 (D. Me. July 6, 2011).

Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1e35aff3-fbb4-4c0f-8d86-36c27137f09d&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2011-09-09&utm_term=