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

Employers' selection criteria must undergo a reasonable accommodation analysis even if justified by business necessity

Lexology
Husch Blackwell LLP
USA
December 14 2011

On November 17, 2011, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued an informal opinion letter in response to an inquiry by the State of Tennessee concerning students who cannot obtain jobs requiring a high school diploma or equivalent because of learning disabilities that prevented them from meeting end-of-course assessment standards. The EEOC, citing the Americans With Disabilities Act, As Amended (ADAAA) and its regulations, imposed a two-step process the employer must follow in order to comply with the statute: First, the employer must prove that the high school diploma requirement is justified by business necessity, and secondly, even if it is so justified, prove that the applicant could not perform the job with a reasonable accommodation.

Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ef49983a-9bc6-4e5a-93cf-95d44620d0c2&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2011-12-23&utm_term=

EEOC ISSUES PRIVATE LETTER ON HS DIPLOMAS & THE ADA

OFCCP Blog Spot
by Art Gutman Ph.D., Professor, Florida Institute of Technology

On 10/9/09, a letter written to the EEOC asked the following question: [Does] the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), prohibit the State of Tennessee from requiring students with learning disabilities to take “Gateway tests” or “end-of-course assessments” in order to receive their full high school diplomas?

Full Story: http://ofccp.blogspot.com/2011/12/eeoc-issues-private-letter-on-hs.html

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

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=

An example of the expanded definition of "disability" under the ADAAA

Lexology.com
Bond Schoeneck & King
Kerry W. Langan
USA
October 11 2011

We all anticipated that the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act (ADAAA) would make it easier for certain medical conditions to qualify as protected disabilities. That was, after all, the point of the Act. Earlier this year, the EEOC provided us with an example of how the ADAAA may do so when it issued an informal discussion letter noting that it will now be easier for individuals with paruresis – commonly known as “shy bladder syndrome” – to meet the statutorily revised definition of a disability. This informal discussion letter is a clear reminder that employers should not make assumptions about whether a particular condition qualifies as a disability.

Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=51a65ec6-0bcf-44b6-8ebb-1ed9fc66a707&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2011-10-18&utm_term=

EEOC highlights legal risks posed by inflexible job requirement and leave policies

Lexology
Foley & Lardner LLP
Jeremy C. Wooden
USA
September 19 2011

The EEOC has recently highlighted the significant legal risks that arise from an employer’s inflexible, one-size-fits-all application of certain employment policies. The EEOC has singled out two types of employment policies that are likely to draw its attention: (1) uniform job qualification requirements that permit no exceptions for applicants “regarded as” disabled, and (2) leave policies containing inflexible cut-off dates.
Uniform Job Qualification Requirements Must Be Relevant to Performance
Speaking recently at the 2011 Technical Assistance Seminar, EEOC Legal Counsel Peggy Mastroianni warned employers that, in the wake of the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA), the EEOC will apply heightened scrutiny to uniform job requirement policies that exclude applicants based on impairments. The ADAAA makes it easier for an applicant to qualify for ADA coverage if he/she is “regarded as” disabled . Prior to the ADAAA, an employer may not have had to defend a no exceptions policy because an affected applicant would not have been regarded as disabled for failing to meet the job requirements. Now, an affected applicant will likely be regarded as disabled, and employers will have to defend the policy on the merits by showing how the policy is relevant to job performance.

Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f74ac9b3-73de-412e-82b6-2c4a008665c8&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Other+top+stories&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2011-09-26&utm_term=

EEOC to Hold Two Workshops in Washington, DC for EEO, Civil Rights and HR Professionals

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
9-1-11

WASHINGTON -- The EEOC Training Institute and the Washington Field Office (WFO) of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) will hold two Equal Employment Opportunity seminars on Monday, September 12, 2011. They will be held at the Center for Association Leadership Eye Street Conference Center, 1575 I Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005 (ASAE). The morning session will be on “Harassment in the Workplace.” The afternoon session, “Disability and Genetics in the Workplace: ADAAA, the Reasonable Accommodation Obligation and GINA,” will highlight important considerations to employers in understanding and implementing the law and the final regulations under the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), as well as how to provide reasonable accommodations under the ADAAA.
These seminars are aimed at experienced HR and personnel specialists; EEO specialists, counselors and investigators; civil rights officers; mediators and other alternative dispute resolution specialists; labor and employee relations specialists; and labor and employment law attorneys, in both the public and private sectors. Both seminars meet the yearly refresher training requirement for Federal agency EEO investigators. Recertification credits from HRCI and Continuing Legal Education (CLE) credits will be requested upon attendee request.
Registration for these seminars is now in progress at the EEOC’s Training Institute website at www.eeotraining.eeoc.gov under the “EEO Seminars” radio button. Click on “Register Now” and scroll down to the bottom of the page to Advanced EEO Workshops. Or contact the Training Institute at 703-291-0880 or 866-446-0940 (800.828.1120 TTY) or eeoc.traininginstitute@eeoc.gov.
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting discrimination in employment. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-1-11b.cfm

The Americans with Disabilities Act: two decades later (part 16): how is an individual who has a history of an impairment treated under the ADAAA?

Lexology.com

Roetzel & Andress
Denise Hasbrook
USA
August 8 2011

In Part 16 of the 20-part series, The Americans with Disabilities Act: Two Decades Later, attorney Denise Hasbrook examines how an individual with a history of an impairment is treated under the ADAAA.
How is an individual who has a history of an impairment treated under the ADAAA?

Click here to view the video: http://ralawemployment.blogspot.com/2011/08/americans-with-disabilities-act-two_8915.html

Workplace Regulations Provide Relief to Pregnant Women and Breastfeeding Moms

Workforce Management
July 2011

The American with Disabilities Act Amendments took effect in January 2009, but the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines for the legislation were not issued until this past March. Coupled with health care reform rules, the implications for pregnant women and new moms in the workplace may be significant.
By Lisa Beyer

ew regulations under health care reform, combined with the American with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008, or ADAAA, should have a positive impact upon pregnant women and new moms in the workplace—and their employers.

According to the U.S. Labor Department, 80 percent of the more than 26 million working women will become pregnant at some point in their careers. And, according to the website Happy Worker, 55 percent of women with a child under the age of 1 will choose to return to work after giving birth.

Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/benefits-compensation/feature/workplace-regulations-provide-relief-pregnant-women-and/index.html

ADAAA final regulations: frequently asked questions

Lexology.com
Baker & Daniels LLP
Susan W. Kline
USA
April 27 2011

The firm recently conducted a webinar on the new ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) final regulations, titled "The ADAAA Final Regulations: Developing Your Rapid Response Plan." Following are frequently asked questions raised by webinar participants, related to the final ADAAA regulations.

QUESTION: How will the amended ADA affect the enforcement of attendance policies? How do you interpret FMLA versus ADA? If we've made an accommodation for an employee to be off work for a certain time frame and when they are expected to return to work they cannot, how long do we have to continue to accommodate the employee? If an employee has excessive absenteeism due to medical condition, and have used all their FMLA time, can we terminate for absenteeism?

ANSWER: A qualified employee with a disability may be entitled under the ADA to leave with job protection beyond what the FMLA requires. The EEOC has taken the position that "no fault" policies that provide for automatic termination after a specified amount of time off work are inconsistent with the "individualized analysis" requirement of the ADA, even if the length of time to automatic termination is very generous (as much as a year with pay, in one situation challenged by the EEOC).

Accordingly, to avoid risk of an ADA challenge, employers should allow employees who have exhausted FMLA leave but need additional time off work due to a condition that may qualify as a disability the opportunity to request additional leave as a reasonable accommodation. In evaluating whether additional leave is reasonable, courts have looked to factors such as how much more time the employee likely needs; the nature of the job and organization; whether the employee is expected to be able to perform all essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodation upon the return to work; whether the expected return date is reliable or uncertain (which may be evidenced by a pattern of previous extensions); and whether the employee is likely to have ongoing unplanned absences.

Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6ded1eed-faa8-470f-8a07-f38a8b98155c&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2011-05-05&utm_term=

HIV and the workplace: an update for employers

Lexology.com
Ogletree Deakins
Denise Cotter Villani and Dallan F. Flake
USA

Employers need to educate themselves about their potential obligations to HIV-infected employees in the workplace. The need for employers and their supervisors and managers to understand the relationship between the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and HIV-infected employees is highlighted by the recent settlement between the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and L&R Express Food Mart Inc., which runs a chain of convenience stores.
A Recent Case Study
The EEOC sued L&R on behalf of an employee who claimed that L&R fired him after discovering he was HIV-infected allegedly because the company feared sales would suffer if customers learned about the employee's medical condition. The settlement, which was announced in January, requires the company to pay $19,000 in damages to the employee and to designate and train, to the EEOC's specifications, an "Equal Opportunity Officer." The Equal Opportunity Officer will be responsible for implementing policies and procedures to ensure ADA com-pliance and for training all L&R supervisors and managers on the anti-discrimination provisions of the ADA and other discrimination laws. As part of the settlement, L&R must submit annual compliance reports to the EEOC.
Employee Rights
In the past, conflicting court opinions created confusion for employers about the rights of HIV-infected employees in the workplace. But recent decisions, often relying on the 2009 amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA Amendments Act) and the Department of Justice's most recent publication on HIV in the Workplace called Questions and Answers: The Americans with Disabilities Act and Persons with HIV/AIDS (DOJ Guidance), have clarified the standards that HIV-infected employees must meet to prove they are disabled. Relying on these publications, courts are increasingly finding that HIV-infected employees qualify as disabled for ADA purposes. Moreover, courts now routinely hold that HIV-infected employees have a constitutionally protected right to privacy regarding their HIV status.

Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=9202ad4d-5607-4691-9750-6b9f0839cf10&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2011-04-28&utm_term=

EEOC’s recently published final rule implementing ADA Amendments Act of 2008 takes effect on May 24

Lexology.com
Venable LLP
Lesley Pate Marlin and Robert G. Ames
USA
April 7 2011

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) recently published its final rule revising the existing Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) regulations and interpretive guidance in light of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”). The new regulations take effect on May 24, 2011.
The ADAAA significantly changed the legal landscape under the ADA by overturning a series of court decisions narrowly interpreting the definition of a disability. Its effect has been to expand the reach of the ADA, making it easier for individuals to establish the existence of a covered disability.
As directed by Congress, the EEOC undertook the regulation revision, publishing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) in September 2009. We previously summarized those proposed regulations in a labor and employment news e-lert, which can be accessed here.

Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0da06177-432f-4491-abb3-e1ede46cbcb2&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2011-04-18&utm_term=

EEOC's final regulations on the ADAAA: news you will certainly use

Lexology Stoel Rives LLP Amy Joseph Pedersen USA March 29 2011 At long last the EEOC has issued its final regulations for the Americans With Disabilities Amendments Act. In so doing, the EEOC has taken Congress’ words contained in the Act and declared (repeatedly) that the definition of “disability” is to be read very broadly and that employers should instead focus on whether discrimination has occurred or an accommodation is needed. As we've noted in our prior ADAAA coverage, we think that many more disability lawsuits will be filed and far fewer of them will be dismissed on summary judgment. As the EEOC sees it, “many more ADA claims will focus on the merits of the case.” What Hasn’t Changed Most of the terms used in the original ADA haven’t changed. The Final Regulations do not alter the definitions of “qualified,” “reasonable accommodation,” “direct threat,” and “undue hardship.” And there are still three ways to come within the scope of the statute: “Actual” disability; “record of” disability; and “perceived as” disabled. The “perceived as” category has some substantial changes, as discussed below. Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=da7b56fd-8f75-482a-960d-67d50c90eafa&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2011-04-04&utm_term= AAAA Note: See other articles on the ADAAA Regulations on Lexology.com

EEOC Announces Final Bipartisan Regulations for the ADA Amendments Act

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
3-24-11

Regulations Implement Congressional Intent to Simplify Definition of Disability

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) final regulations to implement the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) are now available for public view on the Federal Register website at www.ofr.gov. The regulations will be published Friday. Like the law they implement, the regulations are designed to simplify the determination of who has a “disability” and make it easier for people to establish that they are protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
“The ADAAA is a very important civil rights law,” said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien. “The regulations developed by the Commission to implement the ADAAA clarify the requirements of the law for all stakeholders, which is one of the Commission’s most important responsibilities.”
“Based on the hard work we did at the Commission over the past months, I am confident that these regulations will work well for both people with disabilities and employers,” said Commissioner Chai Feldblum, who joined the EEOC in April, 2010. “It was our job as an agency to carry out the intent of this landmark law and I believe we have done so successfully.” Feldblum was one of the lead negotiators on the original ADA as well as on the Amendments Act.
“Just as the ADAAA was the result of a considerable bipartisan effort by Congress, the final rule represents a concerted effort of EEOC Commissioners representing both parties to arrive at regulations that hold true to that bipartisan Congressional intent,” said Commissioner Constance S. Barker. “I was pleased to have been able to vote in favor of the final rule.”
The ADAAA went into effect on Jan. 1, 2009. In the ADAAA, Congress directed the EEOC to revise its regulations to conform to changes made by the Act, and expressly authorized the EEOC to do so. The EEOC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on proposed implementing regulations on September 23, 2009, and received well over 600 public comments in response. The final regulations reflect the feedback the EEOC received from a broad spectrum of stakeholders.
The ADAAA overturned several Supreme Court decisions that Congress believed had interpreted the definition of “disability” too narrowly, resulting in a denial of protection for many individuals with impairments such as cancer, diabetes or epilepsy. The ADAAA states that the definition of disability should be interpreted in favor of broad coverage of individuals. The effect of these changes is to make it easier for an individual seeking protection under the ADA to establish that he or she has a disability within the meaning of the ADA.
The ADAAA and the final regulations keep the ADA’s definition of the term “disability” as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; a record (or past history) of such an impairment; or being regarded as having a disability. But the law made significant changes in how those terms are interpreted, and the regulations implement those changes.
Based on the statutory requirements, the regulations set forth a list of principles to guide the determination of whether a person has a disability. For example, the principles provide that an impairment need not prevent or severely or significantly restrict performance of a major life activity to be considered a disability. Additionally, whether an impairment is a disability should be construed broadly, to the maximum extent allowable under the law. The principles also provide that, with one exception (ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses), “mitigating measures,” such as medication and assistive devices like hearing aids, must not be considered when determining whether someone has a disability. Furthermore, impairments that are episodic (such as epilepsy) or in remission (such as cancer) are disabilities if they would be substantially limiting when active.
The regulations clarify that the term “major life activities” includes “major bodily functions,” such as functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, and brain, neurological, and endocrine functions. The regulations also make clear that, as under the old ADA, not every impairment will constitute a disability. The regulations include examples of impairments that should easily be concluded to be disabilities, such as HIV infection, diabetes, epilepsy, and bipolar disorder.
Following the dictates of the ADAAA, the regulations also make it easier for individuals to establish coverage under the “regarded as” part of the definition of “disability.” Establishing such coverage used to pose significant hurdles, but under the new law, the focus is on how the person was treated rather than on what an employer believes about the nature of the person’s impairment.
The Commission has released two Question-and-Answer documents about the regulations to aid the public and employers – including small business – in understanding the law and new regulations. The ADAAA regulations, accompanying Question and Answer documents and a fact sheet are available on the EEOC website at www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/adaaa_info.cfm.
The EEOC enforces the nation’s laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/3-24-11.cfm

New ADA regulations imminent

Lexology.com
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
USA
March 14 2011

Late last week, the Office of Management and Budget approved much-anticipated final regulations under the ADA Amendments Act (“ADAAA”). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sent OMB the regulations at the end of 2010. That OMB approved the new regulations in less than 90 days (the usual regulatory review period) reflects the Obama Administration’s continued commitment to heightened civil rights enforcement. Publication in the Federal Register is expected any day.
Subjects likely to be addressed in the final regulations include:
whether a “temporary” impairment (e.g., less than 6 months) can be substantially limiting, and thus covered under the ADAAA;
whether numerous conditions will consistently meet the definition of disability, including cancer, cerebral palsy, diabetes, epilepsy, HIV and AIDS, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, major depression, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, and schizophrenia; ....

Full Story:

EEOC Approves ADAAA Draft Final Regs

HR.BLR.Com
January 10, 2011

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) privately approved its draft final regulations under the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA). The regulations are being reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and other federal agencies. The ADAAA took effect January 1, 2009. The law was intended to restore the ADA’s definition of disability, which had been narrowed through a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

Full Story: http://hr.blr.com/HR-news/Discrimination/Disabilities-ADA/EEOC-Approves-ADAAA-Draft-Final-Regs/

Disabilities Protections Expanded

Workforce Management
By James E. Hall, Mark T. Kobata and Marty Denis
Workforce Management, November 2010, p. 11

Because of the ADA Amendments Act's more expansive definition of a 'disability,' employers should be aware that workers with cancer or other diseases that are inactive or in remission may still be considered disabled, in which case reasonable accommodations must be considered.

Sam Hoffman, a service technician for Advanced Healthcare, was diagnosed with stage 3 renal cancer and had his left kidney removed.
More than a year later, Advanced Healthcare told all of its service technicians, including Hoffman, they would have to start working 65 to 70 hours a week, instead of the previous 40 hours.
Although his cancer was in remission, Hoffman gave the company a doctor’s note limiting him to a 40-hour schedule. Advanced Healthcare agreed to a 40-hour schedule but told him he would have to work out of the company’s Fort Wayne, Indiana, office rather than his Angola, Indiana, home. Hoffman, citing two to three hours of commute time that would be added to his day, refused and never returned to work.
Hoffman sued the company under the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended by the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act, claiming the company failed to accommodate his disability and fired him because he was disabled or regarded as disabled.

Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/archive/feature/legal/disabilities-protections-expanded/index.php

Court interprets ADAAA to permit disability discrimination claim based on cancer in remission

Lexology.com
Bond Schoeneck & King
Margo G. Ferrandino
USA
September 28 2010

In one of the first cases of its kind to make it to the summary judgment phase,” a federal district court in Indiana found last month that under the recent amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADAAA”), cancer even while in remission is a disability, Hoffman v. Carefirst of Fort Wayne Inc. The case is significant because it is one of the first cases to interpret broadly the ADAAA’s expanded definition of disability and to rely on Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) guidance in doing so. It is also significant because it imposes a reasonable accommodation obligation for an impairment that did not substantially limit a major life activity at the time the accommodation was requested.
According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff, Stephen Hoffman was employed as a mobile service technician. In November 2007, Hoffman was diagnosed with stage III renal cancer. In January 2008, two months after undergoing surgery to remove a kidney, Hoffman returned to work. Although Hoffman sometimes suffered from fatigue, pain, and discomfort, particularly when sitting or driving, Hoffman continued working his routine schedule without any medical restrictions.

Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f66e33c4-bbe0-4c50-9ed9-b7b08a93498a&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Other+states+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2010-10-04&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.”
In Atlanta, the agency charged Eckerd Corporation, a nationwide drug store chain doing business as Rite Aid (EEOC v. Eckerd Corporation d/b/a Rite Aid), Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-2816-JEC, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia) with refusing to provide a reasonable accommodation -- a stool to sit on -- to a long-time employee who experienced severe arthritic symptoms in her knees. Fern Strickland, who had worked as a cashier for Rite Aid with this reasonable accommodation for seven years without incident, lost the use of her stool in January 2009 when a new district manager decided that the company would no longer accommodate her disability. According to the EEOC’s pre-suit investigation, the district manager “did not like the idea” that Strickland used a stool. The suit claims that she was terminated several weeks later because of the manager’s failure to accommodate her disability.
In a case filed in Baltimore, the agency alleges that surveying company Fisher, Collins & Carter fired two employees because they had diabetes and hypertension. According to the suit (EEOC v. Fisher, Collins & Carter, Case No. 10-cv-2453, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland), the company asked Robert Gray and Wayne Seifert and other employees to complete a questionnaire regarding their health conditions and medications. Gray had worked for the company for 15 years starting as a rodman, and had been promoted to the position of party chief by the time of his termination. Seifert had been employed since 2000 as a rodman. The suit asserts that, despite their many years of successful performance, the company unlawfully selected Gray and Seifert for a reduction-in-force on January 21, 2009, on the basis of their disabilities, while retaining less qualified, non-disabled employees.
In the third case announced today, filed in Lansing, Mich., the agency charged that IPC Print Services fired one of its employees rather than allowing him to work part time while being treated for cancer. According to the agency's pre-suit investigation, Derek Nelson, who had been employed by IPC as a machinist for over ten years, went on medical leave in 2008 in order to undergo chemotherapy. The EEOC's suit (EEOC v. IPC Print Services, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-886 in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan ), alleges that in January 2009, when Nelson sought to continue working part-time while he completed his treatment, IPC discharged Nelson for exceeding the maximum hours of leave allowed under company policy. That decision, the agency contends, violated IPC's obligation to reasonably accommodate Nelson's disability.
In each case, the EEOC conducted an administrative investigation and attempted to reach a voluntary settlement prior to filing suit.
Originally enacted in 1990, the ADA prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of disability. During the ensuing years, federal courts took a narrow view of what conditions counted as “disabilities” under the law. Some courts had found that individuals with serious conditions — such as diabetes and cancer — were not covered by the ADA’s protections against discrimination. In 2008, Congress responded to these interpretations by adopting the ADA Amendments Act, which made clear that the definition of “disability” is both broad and straightforward.
“These cases, among the first filed by the EEOC under the ADA Amendments Act, illustrate the continuing need for rigorous enforcement of the law in this area, as well as further education about the ADA’s requirements,” said General Counsel David Lopez. “Congress has made the scope of the ADA clear and broad: Individuals with disabilities — including serious medical conditions such as cancer, diabetes, and severe arthritis — must be evaluated according to their qualifications, and not their disabilities. Where a reasonable accommodation will enable a person with a disability to perform the essential functions of her job, an employer must provide it. Through cases like those announced today, the EEOC’s litigation program will focus on deterring willful violations of this important civil rights law.”
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the Commission is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

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