Cessna Aircraft Company to Pay over $160,000 In EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit

Aircraft Manufacturer Required Conditional Employees With Physical Impairments to Satisfy Workers' Compensation Standards, Agency Charged

MILWAUKEE - Cessna Aircraft Company will pay $167,500 and furnish other relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

Read the press release here.

EEOC Releases Fiscal Year 2015 Enforcement and Litigation Data

Retaliation, Race Discrimination and Harassment Persist; Disability Charges Increase

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today released detailed breakdowns of the 89,385 charges of workplace discrimination that the agency received in fiscal year 2015. Retaliation charges increased by nearly 5 percent and continue to be the leading concern raised by workers across the country. Disability charges increased by 6 percent from last year and are the third largest category of charges filed.

Read the press release here.

Related content:

• Fisher & Phillips' Wrigley: EEOC's 2015 Fiscal Year Data Prompts Top 10 Tips (Fisher & Phillips LLP)
• Retaliation Continues to Be the Number One Type of Charge Filed with the EEOC (Hall Render Killian Heath & Lyman PC)
• Retaliation and Disability Charges are on the Rise, According to EEOC Litigation and Charge Statistics for FY 2015 (Littler Mendelson PC)

Yesterday’s Pub & Grille Sued by EEOC For Disability Discrimination

Supervisor Refused to Hire HIV-Positive Employee for Server Position

GREENSBORO, N.C. - Sappyann, Inc., which operates Yesterday's Pub & Grille restaurant in Sanford, N.C., violated federal law by discriminating against an employee when it refused to hire him because he is HIV-positive, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

Read the press release here.

Randstad Will Pay $50,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit

Temporary Agency Refused Job to Laborer Because She Was in a Medically Supervised Drug Rehabilitation Program, Federal Agency Charged

BALTIMORE - Baltimore-based temporary labor agency Randstad, US, LP, will pay $50,000 and furnish significant equitable relief to settle a federal disability discrimination lawsuit, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today.

Read the press release here.

NHC Healthcare/Clinton, LLC will Pay $50,000 to Settle EEOC Pregnancy and Disability Discrimination Lawsuit

Nursing Center Failed to Provide Pregnant Employee with a Reasonable Accommodation and Subsequently Fired Her, Federal Agency Charged

GREENVILLE, S.C. - NHC Healthcare/Clinton, LLC, a licensed nursing center that provides a wide array of skilled nursing, therapeutic and rehabilitative services, has agreed to pay $50,000 and provide substantial injunctive relief to settle a pregnancy and disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

Read the press release here.

P.H. Glatfelter to Pay $180,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit

Paper Manufacturer Screened Out Individuals With Disabilities Based on Unlawful Qualification Standard, Federal Agency Said

PHILADELPHIA - P.H. Glatfelter Company, a global paper manufacturer headquartered in York, Pa., will pay $180,000 and provide significant equitable relief to settle a federal disability discrimination lawsuit, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today.

Read the story here.

Taking Too Long to Accommodate Disabled Employee Can Be Fatal to Summary Judgment

Fenwick & West LLP, Lexology

In Gupta v. IBM, a high-level IBM employee sought accommodations for his back problems, including business-class air travel and special ergonomic furniture. IBM complied with the travel request, but took over 3.5 months to process the furniture request, by which point Gupta had already been selected for retirement during a larger layoff process. Gupta filed suit in California state court, alleging disability discrimination, failure to engage in the interactive process, and failure to accommodate. The court denied IBM’s motion to dismiss the failure to engage in the interactive process and failure to accommodate claims because questions of fact remained as to whether IBM delayed the implementation of the new furniture. The Court was unpersuaded by IBM’s argument that the “routine processing” of an accommodation by a large corporation will take some time, and concluded that a jury must assess the lawfulness of IBM’s actions.

Read the story here.

Fired U of Southern California Coach Sues University for Discrimination

Inside Higher Ed

Steve Sarkisian, the former head football coach of the University of Southern California who was fired in October after he appeared to be intoxicated at a game and during team meetings, sued the university Monday, alleging that he was discriminated against on the basis of a disability.

Read the story here.

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=

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=

Workforce Flexibility Promotes Employment of People with Disabilities

The Huffington Post
Robin Shaffert
Senior Director of Corporate Social Responsibility of the AAPD
Posted: October 29, 2010 05:03 PM

As we look back on October's celebrations of National Work and Family Month and National Disability Employment Awareness Month, advocates for increasing workforce flexibility and advocates for improving employment outcomes for people with disabilities should recognize the progress we have made. To a far greater extent than a year ago, it is generally agreed today that creating a flexible workplace benefits all employees, but it especially benefits employees with disabilities.
We need to also recognize how far we still have to go to achieve the promise of equal employment opportunity for people with disabilities.

Full Story: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-shaffert/workforce-flexibility-pro_b_776158.html

U. of I. opens state-of-the-art dorm for students with disabilities

Chicago Tribune
By Jodi S. Cohen, Tribune reporter
10:05 p.m. CDT, August 18, 2010

Facility marks new milestone for university, already a leader in disability services

CHAMPAIGN — With very limited use of her arms and legs, Kelsey Rozema has needed her parents' help with most daily tasks — getting out of bed, showering, putting on a coat and even opening a water bottle. In 18 years, they've been apart for only six nights.
So moving into a college dorm this week — and away from the reliance on her family — is even more of a milestone for Rozema than for the thousands of other wide-eyed freshmen arriving this week at the University of Illinois, a ritual that will be repeated on college campuses throughout the country in coming weeks.

Full Story: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/education/ct-met-u-of-i-disability-dorm-20100818,0,796860.story

Office of Disability Employment Policy Hosts Listening Sessions

The U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Disability Employment Policy(ODEP) is hosting listening sessions around the nation. See below for the information posted on its website:

A New Day: We’re Listening
On January 21 in Dallas, Texas, ODEP and its Federal partners began a series of six disability employment Listening Sessions. Each Listening Session is an opportunity for members of the public to provide input to senior Federal officials on their ideas for more effective ways to employ all people with disabilities, including women, Veterans and minorities with disabilities and what is currently working in their regions to increase employment of people with disabilities. ODEP seeks input particularly from:
Individuals & Consumers: youth and adults with disabilities, parents and caregivers
Employers: public and private
Service Providers & Advocacy Organizations (such as Employment Services and Partners): Independent Living Centers, One-Stops, State Vocational Rehabilitation Programs
The dates for the Listening Sessions are:
January 21 – Dallas, TX
January 27 – Philadelphia, PA
February 11 – Chicago, IL
February 16 – San Francisco, CA
February 24 – Atlanta, GA
March 3 – Boston, MA

The registration and comment periods for the Philadelphia, Chicago, and San Francisco sessions are now open. For Listening Session details, a message from Assistant Secretary Kathleen Martinez, registration information and live streaming video during each event, visit A New Day: We're Listening.
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook before, during, and after the Sessions.

http://www.dol.gov/odep/

Diabetic to begin career as diplomat

boston.com
Sued after offer was rescinded
By Jonathan Saltzman, Globe Staff December 12, 2009

Anna Balogh became interested in pursuing a career as a diplomat in 1990, when she lived in Hungary the summer after her freshman year at Wellesley College. Communism was collapsing in Europe. Her roommate was an East German, and they urgently discussed Germany’s looming reunification. History was unfolding at stunning speed before their eyes.
Thirteen years later, the Lincoln woman applied for a highly competitive job as a Foreign Service officer and received an offer in November 2003. But her excitement soon gave way to crushing disappointment when the State Department withdrew the offer for a reason she found unfathomable: Balogh is an insulin-dependent diabetic. The government denied her medical clearance because she had to be fit to work at any of about 270 posts worldwide, including some in remote locales.
This week, days before Balogh’s civil rights lawsuit against the State Department was to go to trial in US District Court in Boston, the 38-year-old and the government settled the dispute out of court. Balogh will be appointed as a Foreign Service officer for a three-year trial period, she said, and hopes it will become permanent.
The government also agreed to pay her a sum, which she declined to disclose, for wages lost when she was not hired.
“Overall, I would say I’m satisfied because at the end of the day, what was most important to me was getting the job,’’ said Balogh, who has a master’s degree from Tufts University’s Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. “I’m exhausted and just relieved, frankly. This was not a typical path for a Foreign Service officer.’’
Her lawyer, Hillary Schwab of Boston, said she believes Balogh’s federal lawsuit was the first filed by someone rejected as a Foreign Service officer because of insulin-dependent, or Type 1, diabetes. Schwab said she hoped the settlement would prod the State Department to eliminate a hiring ban that she and her client consider outdated, given the availability of insulin and medical treatment for diabetics worldwide.

Full Story: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/12/12/diabetic_to_begin_career_as_diplomat/

EEOC SUES AT&T FOR DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Press Release
September 25, 2009

Telephone Company Refused to Hire Qualified Diabetic Applicant Because of Disability, Federal Agency Charges

AUSTIN, Texas – AT&T Services, Inc., doing business as Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, L.P. (AT&T), a major telephone company, violated federal law by refusing to hire an applicant simply because he is an insulin-dependent diabetic, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed today.
According to the EEOC’s suit, AT&T violated the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to hire an applicant as a cable splicer technician in Austin only because of his “insulin use” for type 2 diabetes. Indeed, according to the EEOC, the applicant indisputably had the necessary experience and expertise to perform the job and had previously safely performed a similar job for AT&T for many years after he was diagnosed with diabetes.
Refusing to hire a qualified individual because of his or her disability, record of disability, or because the employer perceives a person as being disabled, violates the ADA. After the EEOC’s San Antonio Field office determined that AT&T had violated the law, it filed suit (CASE NO. A09CA700JN) in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement. The EEOC seeks back pay, compensatory damages and punitive damages for the victim, as well as injunctive relief.
“Hiring decisions should be based on an applicant’s qualifications and not on myths, fears and stereotypes about actual or perceived disabilities related to diabetes and insulin use,” said Senior Trial Attorney Eduardo Juarez of the EEOC’s San Antonio Field Office.
According to its web site, Dallas-based AT&T “is recognized as one of the leading worldwide providers of IP-based communications services to businesses.” Further information about the company is available at its web site, http://www.att.com.
“Employers must make hiring decisions based on the applicant’s ability to perform the duties of the job,” said Supervisory Trial Attorney Judith G. Taylor of the EEOC’s San Antonio Field Office. “This company flatly refused to consider an applicant for employment simply because he is an insulin-dependent diabetic. AT&T should not have relied on generalized and grossly incorrect assumptions about a diabetic’s ability to perform a job, especially considering that the applicant worked for about 13 to 14 years in a similar job for AT&T, approximately ten years of which he was an insulin-dependent diabetic.” The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the Commission is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

ADVANCE AUTO PARTS SETTLES DISABILITY BIAS SUIT WITH EEOC FOR $50,000 AND REMEDIAL RELIEF

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
3-9-09

Company Refused to Hire Man with Cerebral Palsy for Sales Job, Federal Agency Charged

BIG STONE GAP, Va. —Advance Stores Company, Inc., doing business as Advance Auto Parts, will pay $50,000 and provide other affirmative relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.
According to the EEOC’s suit, Advance Auto Parts refused to hire Jeffrey Scott Sanders in September 2004 because he has cerebral palsy. Sanders had applied for a part-time sales position at an Advance Auto Parts retail store in Norton, Va. The EEOC said that Sanders had successfully completed an internship as a salesperson at Advance Auto’s Staunton, Va., store through a training program in which he participated. The EEOC further charged that despite Sanders’ qualifications and experience obtained through the internship, Advance Auto did not hire him but did hire at least one other person who was less qualified than Sanders.
Failing or refusing to hire an individual because he or she has a disability violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement (EEOC v. Advance Stores Company, Inc. d/b/a Advance Auto Parts, Civil Action 02-08CV00011).
In addition to the monetary relief to be paid to Sanders, as part of the settlement, Advance Auto agreed to provide training on an annual basis to all of its managers, supervisors, and employees in its Norton, Va., store; post an employee notice regarding this settlement; and report any allegations of disability discrimination by job applicants at the company’s Norton location to the EEOC.
“Federal law prohibits employers from taking discriminatory employment actions based on myths, stereotypes or assumptions about an individual’s disability, rather than the person’s actual ability to perform the job,” said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte District Office, whose jurisdiction includes most of Virginia.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the Commission is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

OFCCP Issues FAQs on the new ADA Amendments Act

The Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has issued Frequently Asked Questions on the new ADA Amendments Act. According to the OFCCP website, http://www.dol.gov/esa/ofccp/regs/compliance/faqs/ADAfaqs.htm: "The ADAAA, Pub. L. 110-325, is intended to overturn a series of Supreme Court decisions that interpreted the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 in a way that made it difficult to prove that an impairment is a "disability." The ADAAA makes significant changes to the ADA's definition of "disability" that broadens the scope of coverage under both the ADA and Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act." The ADAAA becomes effective on January 1, 2009. According to the agency, the ADAAA is not retroactive and OFCCP will be promulgating regulations under Section 503 after the EEOC issues ADAAA regulations.

The FAQs are found at: http://www.dol.gov/esa/ofccp/regs/compliance/faqs/ADAfaqs.htm

Drug Use Not Grounds for Disability Denial

Workforce Management
August 7, 2008
Drug Use Not Grounds for Disability Denial

An employee may be entitled to temporary total disability compensation even though she tested positive for cocaine use while on a Family and Medical Leave Act absence, an Ohio appeals court ruled Thursday, July 31.
The decision by the 10th District Court of Appeals in State of Ohio ex relatione Alice M. Bogan v. Industrial Commission of Ohio and Tomasco Mulciber Inc. overturned a state Industrial Commission finding.
The commission had ruled that Bogan “voluntarily abandoned her employment” by violating an employee-handbook prohibition against the use of illegal drugs in the workplace or reporting to work under their influence. Therefore, the commission said, Bogan was not entitled to disability compensation.
But on appeal, a magistrate appointed by the appeals court found no evidence that Bogan used drugs on her employer’s property or was working when she tested positive. The magistrate ruled that the Industrial Commission abused its discretion by denying the temporary total disability compensation. [To read the entire article, go to: http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/25/69/50.php ]

Higher-Education Bill Would Bring Benefits to Disabled Students

The Chronicle of Higher Education
August 6, 2007

Washington — Tucked inside the vast bill to reauthorize the Higher Education Act that now awaits President Bush’s signature are several provisions designed to improve disabled students’ access to higher education.
The bill would, for the first time, allow students with intellectual disabilities to receive some types of federal aid: Pell Grants, Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, and work-study assistance. Under some circumstances, for example, mentally retarded students in formal transition or living-skills programs would now qualify for federal financial aid.
The bill would also establish two national entities to support students with disabilities — a National Center for Information and Technical Support for Postsecondary Students With Disabilities, and an Advisory Commission on Accessible Instructional Materials. In addition, the bill would support “model demonstration programs” to improve the quality of instructional materials and to allow colleges and universities to collaborate in their development.
Under current regulations, former students who struggle to pay off educational loans because they are disabled must, to get those loans discharged, demonstrate that their conditions will result in death or last indefinitely. The new bill, however, would allow loans to be discharged if a borrower’s condition is expected to last at least five years. [To read the entire article, go to: http://chronicle.com/news/article/4950/higher-education-bill-would-bring-benefits-to-disabled-students?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en ]

Access Denied

Inside Higher Ed
August 6, 2008

In a discrimination case that is still crawling through the Louisiana court system after seven years, McNeese State University’s president has asserted that it is not a “high priority” for disabled students to access the university’s student union.
The case, which stems from a 2001 accident, was brought by a student who — while in a wheelchair — was injured trying to pry open a bathroom door in the union. The door was not made accessible for disabled people, according to the suit.
In a 2005 deposition, McNeese President Robert Hebert acknowledged that the institution was “not in 100 percent compliance” with the Americans With Disabilities Act. With limited funding, McNeese has had to make tough choices about how to spend its money on federal compliance, he said. This being the case, Hebert said, academic buildings have reasonably taken priority over the student union, which houses offices, cafeterias, and the student newspaper, among other services.
“Whether or not it’s fundamental for [disabled students] to get into that student union annex or that it’s fundamentally important for them to obtain an education, I would question that,” Hebert said in the deposition, which is now making the rounds on Youtube. “I’m not sure I would regard it as a high priority.”
Under the harshest interpretation, Hebert’s words could mean that he simply doesn’t view giving disabled students an “education” as a “high priority.” In the broader context of his deposition, however, Hebert noted that McNeese was confronted with something of a Sophie’s Choice. Forced to choose between making classrooms accessible and making the union accessible, he said, McNeese chose the classrooms. Whether McNeese lacked the funds to do both, however, is disputed in the lawsuit.
Asked to clarify or expound upon his remarks, Hebert responded in an e-mail Tuesday:
“Accessibility to all facilities is important, but accessibility to academic buildings is critical for classroom instruction,” he wrote. “We have made great progress toward making the campus accessible to all students, employees and visitors. It is, and will be, an ongoing project and one that we take very seriously.”
As of Tuesday, however, the lone women’s restroom in the student union was still not compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act — seven years after a student was injured there.
The law does not require that every bathroom in a building constructed prior to the act’s 1990 passage meet the standards, but it does require that all services and programs be made available to disabled people. [To view the entire article, go to: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/08/06/mcneese ]